Türkiye’nin Kimlik Analizi

Orhan Pamuk’un ”düş gücünün avukatı, düz yazımızın en özgür ruhlu kalemi ” dediği Gündüz Vassaf’ın başarılı bir kitabı, Uçmakdere Yazıları serisinin birincisi olan ‘Türkiye Sen Kimsin (2008/İletişim Yayınları) bir deneme türü olarak eleştirel bir boyutta karşımıza çıkıyor. Kitap beş bölümden oluşuyor: ‘Ben Türküm, Kiralık Hükümetler, Peygamberlere Reklam Hakkı, Kahramalıklarımız-Kültürümüz-Hergün Yaşadıklarımız, Dava Dünyalı Olmak’. Kitapta yakın tarihimizin özgün ve korkusuz eleştirisi dobra dobra, üstelik yer yer kanıtlamalarla yazarın kaleminden damlıyor.

B1396

Kitabın isminden de anlaşılacağı üzere Türkiye’nin derinlemesine incelendiği bu kitapta, bizim batı anlayışımız, batının bizi nasıl gördüğü, milliyetçilik anlayışımız, siyasetimiz, tarihte düştüğümüz hatalar, kandırılışımız daha doğrusu kendimizi nasıl kandırdığımız, düşünce yapımız derinlemesine inceleniyor. Seksen darbesi öncesi ve sonrası Türkiye’sinin ışık tutulduğu ‘Türkiye Sen Kimsin ?’ adlı yazıda, Türkiye’deki Psikoloji biliminin gelişiminden söz ediliyor. Bunun yanında, batı tarafından giydirilmiş gömleğimiz, yapmacıklığımız, özentiliğimiz Gündüz Vassaf’ın, ‘Türkiye Sen Kimsin ?’ adlı yazısında şu sözlerle vurgulanıyor ”Boğaziçi Üniversitesi’nde okuttuğum yıllarda ülkemizde psikolojinin konumu, başka bir çok ülkede olduğu gibi, ABD’nin ikinci sınıf müsveddesi idi. Geçen yüzyıla yakın zamanda, bu akademik disiplin ülkemizde kendine özgü bir kimlik oluşturamamış, başka ülkelerde yapılanları kendi çapında tekrarlamakla yetinmişti. Psikolojinin bağımlı ve değişken kimliği, Türkiye’de egemen düzenin Batı taklitçiliğinin, bu taklitçiliğin hepimize yansımasının, günlük yaşantımızda bile yankı bulmasının ancak küçük bir ifadesi” (s.72). Öyle görünüyor ki, tüm bunlar düşünce yapımızın nasıl yönlendirildiğini, bunun kimler tarafından, hangi kanallarla yapıldığının açık bir göstergesi.Ayrıca bu kitapta neden kendimizi bir türlü kabullenemeyişimiz, kavgalarımız, farklılıklarımızla bir bütün olamayışımız eleştiriliyor.

Kitapta benim açımdan özellikle  üç bölüm göze çarpıyor. İlk olarak ‘BİZ BİZE NEDENBENZEMEYELİM’ adlı yazısında yazar,toplum içindeki benzer olaylar sonrası ‘biz bize benzeriz’ ‘biz adam olmayız’ deyimlerinin sıklıkla kullanıldığından dem vuruluyor. Türkiye’yi  aşırı boyutta sahip çıkmaya çalışmamız, en küçük bir durumda bile onun üzerine düşmeye çalışmamız ülkenin olgunlaşmasına bir engel teşkil ettiğini söylüyor.Ayrıca bir takım gruplaşmalarla bazı kesimlerin devlete sahip çıkma görevinin sadece kendilerine ait olduğunu vurguladıkları ve bu şekilde farklı bakış açılarına sahip kitlelerin oluşmasından bahsediliyor. Bu noktada yazar şu mesajı veriyor ”Mesele herkesin görüşünü özgürce ifade edebilmesi değil. Herkesin görüşüne tahammül etmemiz de değil. Herkesin görüşüne ihtiyacımız olduğu . Reddetsek bile kendimizi anlayabilmek için ihtiyacımız var” (s.37). Daha sonra sözlerine şöyle devam ederek çözümüne kanıt sunuyor: ”Toplumlarımız  nice rejim, nice din, nice dil değiştirmiş. Biz hepsinin sonucu, hepsinin devamıyız. Ancak bildiklerimize sahip çıkalım derken bilmediklerimize ulaşmanın, bizden farklı olanı tanımanın yolunu tıkıyoruz” (s.37). Aslına bakarsak biz hep kendimizi başkalaştırmış, başka biri olmaya çalışmışız zaman zaman. Bu süreç içerisinde farklılıklarımızı çatıştırmışız, farklı kesimlerden fakat baktığımızda aynı coğrafyayı paylaştığımız kişilerin , azınlıkta olanların fikirlerini ötekileştirmişiz. Her ne kadar ötekileştirsek de sorun aslında burda değil,  sorun onların fikirlerine de ihtiyaç duymamızın gerekliliği ve eğer herkesin menfaatine bir karar alınacaksa bu tüm kesimlerin görüşleriyle birlikte bir bütünsel çerçevede alınarak yapılır ki bu da asıl demokrasidir. Yalnızca çoğunluğun değil o toplumda yaşayan her kesmin de görüşünün bulunduğu, hoşgörüsel bir demokrasi anlayışı. Çok farklı kültür ve bunun doğal getirisi olarak çok farklı dünya görüşlerine  sahip bir toplumumuz var ve bu asıl demokrasiye bence çok ihtiyacımız var.

Watchtower of Turkey (izlemek için tıkla)

Yazarın bir başka dikkat çeken yazısı ‘TÜRKLER IRKÇI MI?’ adlı bölümde ırkçılıktan ziyade  kendimizi büyük gördüğümüz kendi ülkemizdeki yabancı unsurların özellikle cumhuriyetten sonra belirli milleyetçilik politikalarıyla dışlandığı ve bu yüzden devlet kademelerinde yer alamadıkları belirtilmiş. Hatta bu anlayışın yani kendini üstün görme anlayışının sıklıkla hat safhaya ulaştığı ve bazı yapılan şeylerin saçma gerekçelerle Türklüğe hakaret  olarak algılandığını, kimi yazarlarımızın bu yüzden rahatlıkla düşüncelerini ifade edemediklerini, hatta Hrant Dink ‘in de söylediği bir cümleden dolayı cinaye kurban gitmesinin trajik olduğu yazar tarafından belirtiliyor. Yazar Alevilerden ve onların sırf dinsel açıdan ve bir takım güçlerin elinde bulanan bir tehdit olarak algılamamıza değiniyor. Aslında tüm bunların gereksiz ve yersiz olduğunu yazar  ABD Başkanı Roosevelt’in şu sözleriyle vurguluyor ” Korkulacak tek şey korkunun kendisidir.” ve devam ediyor, ”Türkiye’de yabancı düşmanlığı atında yatan başlıca duygu kendimize güvenmemekten kaynaklanan korku değil mi?” (s.63). Burada yazarın görüşlerini değerlendirmek gerekirse kendimize güven konusunda tarihimizde olan bazı olayların, yurdumuz işgal edildiğinde çoğu azınlığın işgalcilerle birlikte işbirliği yapmış olması, yurt düşmandan arındırıldıktan sonra bir ön yargı oluşmuş olabilir ve geçmişte yaşanan bazı olaylar bu ön yargının oluşumuna ve azınlıkların, yabancı unsurların dışlanmalarına olanak sağlamış olabilir. Konu bu noktaya geldiğinde azınlıklar, yabancı unsurlar diyoruz, evet ama kime göre ? Bir topluluk hakkında genelleme yapmak çok basit ama bir o kadar da yanlış. Azınlıklar hakkında böyle bir genellemede bulunarak, belli yargılarla onlara gömlekler giydirerek, kesin kalıplar içerisinde onları değerlendirmişiz ve değerlendirmeye devam ediyoruz. Eğer bu açıdan bakarsak şu da belirtilmeli ki bağımsızlık mücadelemizi engellemeye çalışan Türk kesiminden de azınlık kesiminden de belli gruplar vardı ve milli varlığa zararlı cemiyetlerin içerisinde azınlıkların kurduğu ve aynı zamanda kendi kurduğumuz, Amerikan, İngiliz mandacılığını savunan cemiyetler de bulunuyordu. Şunu da unutmayalım; biz azınlıklar ya da farklı kültürlerle oluşmuş bir toplumuz, tarihten bu yana bir çok kültür bulunduğumuz topraklarda kaynaşarak, bir birini besleyerek yeni bir kültür sentezi oluşturmuş ve bu kültür sentezi ancak bu farklılıkların bir arada huzurlu ve dışlayıcı bir şekilde olmadan, kabul edici bir şekilde yaşandığında  güzel bir tablo ortaya çıkabilir. İsmail Tokalak (2007) kitabında bu sentezi şu şekilde yorumluyor ”Osmanlılar İstanbulun fethi’ne (1453) kadar Anadolu’daki Bizans halklarıyla 150 yıl beraber yaşadılar. Bu beraberlik Osmanlı Türklerine Devlet kurmak için gerekli alt yapıyı hazırladı. 11. Yüzyıl dan itibaren Türkler Anadolu’da geçirdikleri 400 yüzyıl içinde kültürel ve etnik bir senteze uğradılar. Hala da uğramaktadırlar. Türkler Orta Asya’dan pala bıyıklı, karayağız delikanlılar olarak gelmediler. Çoğunluğu seyrek bıyıklı, kumral tenli, orta boylu, çekik gözlü, elmacık yanaklan çıkık, küçük basık burunlu bugünkiMoğol ırkı görünümündeydiler.” Yani sonuç olarak yaptığımız milletçiliğin ve kendimizibaşkalaştırmaya çalışmamızın çok mantıksız aynı zamanda hatalı bir davranış olduğunugörmekteyiz.

an_1626293

Yazar ilginç ve bir o kadar acı bir gerçek olan Mustafa Kemal ve Nazım Hikmetin tarihboyunca isimlerinin maruz kaldığı durumu ve bu değerli kişiliklerin imajlarının belli zamanlarda belli kesimler tarafından topluma karşı kullanıldığını ‘MUSTAFA KEMAL VE NAZIM HİKMET’ adlı başlıkta ortaya koymuş. Kimi zaman komünizm ideolojisi altında kimi zaman bu ideolojiye siper edilerek, kimi zaman darbe döneminde islami kişiliğini ön plana çıkarılarak halkı etkilemek için , günümüzde de muhafazakar kesme karşı Atatürkçü olduğunu savunan belli kesimler tarafından isminin kullanıldığını belirtiyor. Aynı şekilde Nazım Hikmet’in de aynı duruma maruz kaldığını vurgulayan yazar, bir zamanlar onu vatan haini ilan eden kişilerin günümüzde Nazım Hikmet’in ismi üzerinden siyaset yapma hevesinde olduklarını ve bu şekilde halkın ilgisini çekecek eylemlerde bulunduklarını söylüyor. Devletin Nazım Hikmeti nasıl kullandığını ve günümüzde ise gazetelerde Türk vatandaşlığına kabul edileceğinin haber yapılmasını ‘NAZIM HİKMET’ adlı başlıkta belirtiyor. Devlein başına geçen iktidarlar bu değerli şahsiyetler dışında belli insanları hep kendi ideolojilerine göre yorumlayıp, kitleleri etkilemek yönlendirmek için hep kullanmışlar ve günümüzde de kullanmaya devam ediyorlar. Bence bir takım siyasi cephe ya da gruplar Atatürk üzerinden siyaset yapmakta ve böyle yaparak aynı zamanda Atatürk’ün isminikirletmekte. Bu durum halkın bu değerli şahsiyete karşı önyargılı bir şekilde yaklaşmasına neden oluyor. Bu geçmiş zamanlarda da uygulandı günümüzde de uygulanıyor. Tüm bunların faturası yine millete kesiliyor, milletin kafası karışıyor , kavgaya neden oluyor. Bir grup ya da birey ötekine sen Kemalizm ideolojiisindensin diyerek onu dışlıyor ya da sen faşistsin, sen komünistsin diyerek belli kalıplar altında , at gözlüklerini takarak olayları ya da kişileri yargılıyor ve ona göre yaşamında kararlar alıyor. Oysaki Cemil Meriç (2009) izmler hakkında ‘İzmler idraklerimize giydirilmiş deli gömleklerdir.’ diyor. Daha farklı bakış açılarından, eleştirel fakat kuru kuruya değil bilgi destekli , birbirini faklı görüşlerle besleyen bir eleştirel düşünce ile olaylara bakmamız gerekiyor. Bu konuda biz gençlere büyük görev ve sorumluluklar düşüyor. Gündüz Vassaf’ın da deyimiyle ” Avı, tarımı, teknolojiyi hep yaşlılar aktardı gençlere. Oysa bugün, türümüzün tarihinde ilk kez, yaşlılar gençlerden öğrenmenin arefesinde.”

 Sonuç olarak, kitabı özetle değerlendirmek gerekirse; kitap genel itibariyle sıkıcı olmayan, akıcı bir Türkçeyle yazılmış. Yazarın açık ve sade bir üslubu var fakat yer yer eski Osmanlıca sözcükler de kullandığını görüyoruz. Yazarın farklılıklarımızı, kendi kimliğimizi kabul etmemiz gerektiği söylemine, dinimizin cemaat anlayışıyla bize sunulması ve bizi etkilemesi, hocalarımızın ve üniversite öğrencilerinin YÖK tarafından fikirlerini özgürce söyleyebilmelerinin engellenmesi ve bu engellemenin yobazca olduğu ve demokratik ilkelere aykırı olduğu, Türkiye’de devlet kurumlarında yapılan yanlışların görmezden gelindiği ve millet olarak kişisel menfaatlerimizden dolayı sesimizi çıkarmayışımız gibi konularda yazara katılıyorum.  Kitap özetle, Türkiye’nin dünden bugüne siyasal, sosyal , dini tüm yaşamsal boyutlarda analizi, değerlendirilmesi, eleştirilmesi diyebiliriz. Yazar okuyucuya fikirlerini her ne kadar açık bir şekilde ulaştırsa da oplumu tümden genel ifadelerle yargılaması yazının eleştirel boyutunu artırmış. Tarih boyunca yenilenen hatalardan tecrübeler çıkaran Türkiyenin kendi yolunu bulup ilerlemesi, ne batı ne de doğu cephesinde yer alması gerektiğini savunuyor. Bu noktada Cemil Meriç’in (2009) şu sözlerine yer vermekde fayda var ”Post modern görüş dâhilinde bütünlük ve anlam içermeyen, fragmanlardan ibaret bir dünyada yasayan insanların hayatları ister istemez eklektiktir. İdeolojiler yüzünden yıllar yılı dünya huzurlu bir hayattan mahrum kaldı. Savaşların çıkması insanların ölmesine neden oldu.” ve ekliyor ”Hangi Türk aydınına biz neyi kaybettik diye sorarsanız, topraklarımızı kaybettik cevabını alırsınız. Fakat aynı soruya Cemil Meriç’in vereceği cevap şudur: “Türkiye Ruhunu kaybetti. Toprak mı ! En değersiz şeyimizdir belki de! Belki de en değersiz şeyimizi kaybedince her şeyimizi kaybettiğimizi anladık.” Türkiye hem devlet hem millet olarak kendisini bulmalı, kaybedilen bu ruhu yeniden canlandırmalıyız. Gündüz Vassaf’ın da düşündüğü gibi biz gençlere bu noktada çok büyük işler düşüyor. Kendimizi farklı bakış açılarıyla besleyerek geliştirmemiz gerekiyor. Yazar mevcut konumun biz gençleri hakim olan tarafın kölesi haline getirmeyi amaçladığını ve başka seçenek de sunmadığını belirtiyor. Şöyle bitiriyor ”Egemen düzen kendisine başkaldırmayan, pazarlananları tüketen gençlerden memnun. Konumlarını belki de hiç bu kadar sarsılmaz, iktidarlarını bu kadar kalıcı, karuni boyutlarda servetlerini bu kadarsorgulanmaz zannetmemişlerdi. Onlar bayraklarıyla dinlerinin gölgesindeinançlarınıçarpıştıradursun, gençler için çoktan gerçekleşmeye başladı dünya vatandaşlığı, bu dünyadayaşıyor olmanın yazgısının bilinci ve sorumluluğu. Seyehatle, internet aracılığıyla yüzyıllların yapaylaşmış sınırlarını aşıyor,yeni diller, değerler sistemi geliştiriyor, yetişkinlerin anlam veremedikleri dünya çapında bir ağ oluşturuyorlar. Şimdilik ekranlarının başındalar. Yarın…”(s.78). Evet bu yarının gerçekleşmesi için de biz gençlerin böyle değerli yazarların kitaplarını okuyarak kendini geliştirmesine bağlı, yalnızca internet aracılığıyla dünyanın keşfedilmesine bağlı olarak gerçekleşecek bir şey değil. Kitaplarla farkındalıklarımızı artırmamız gerekiyor. 

Türkiye’nin Ruhu: Cemil Meriç Belgeseli (izlemek için tıkla)

Mustafa Yılmaz

KAYNAKÇA

Bizans-Osmanlı Sentezi Bizans Kültür ve Kurumlarının Osmanlı Üzerindeki Etkisi-İsmail   Tokalak (Gülerboy Yayınları/2007)

-Ferit Genç – Bu Ülke Kitap Eleştirisi -http://arsiv.kitaphaber.net/bu-ulke-cemil-meric-2/

-http://zaningeh.net/%E2%80%98%E2%80%99-aitlikler-ve-turkiye-sen-kimsin-olayi-%E2%80%99%E2%80%99.html/

-http://www.radikal.com.tr/yazar_arsiv.phpyazarno=40&ek=&tarih=14/11/2012&sonuc_sayfasi=220

Culture Industry And Example Of Black Mirror

Today in the early years of twenty-first century if we look our around, we can see that almost all society lives with tending the consumption invariably. This situation is the result of capitalist way of thinking and result of the capitalist economic system as well. At this point The Frankfurt School drew attention this subject that is result of the capitalist system. Max Harkheimer, Thedor W. Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse who have Marxist way of thinking criticized capitalism. According to them, human lost their life in culture industry and they incurred technology, buying the new things constantly and advertising. So, in this essay, I will try to explain culture industry and its effects and give examples of it, and also I will try to connect this concept between our life and Black Mirror Series (Season 1, Episode 2).

black-mirror-tum-bolumler-izle

According to the thinkers, capitalism say us that there is preference and individual liberty for the people but this idea enslaves the people in the paradigm of modernity which is based on consumption by using communication tools and media. Therefore the capitalism uses technology and science for enslaving the human. Also they think that this ideology generates one-dimensional society that has people who consume continuously and unnecessarily.

We can see all these things that are created by culture industry in our life. For example football industry is like culture industry I think. In the past we don’t have to pay the money when we watch the match in TV, but now we have to pay for it because interest of football have increased rapidly with media effects. The clubs and government are earning a lot of money from football industry with advertising, watching the match, consuming the clubs product etc. Mass of people kills each other for the result of football match and it invades our agenda. I strongly believe that is related with culture industry.

blackmirror

In addition, to give another example for the culture industry today we can see that we are consuming unnecessarily by affecting with advertising for the sake of living modernly like consuming technological product or cloths. All these things are fake necessities that are created by modern and industrial culture. Mass of people has become a tool of technology who consume consistently. If you ask people that ‘Can you think living without the Internet? The answer is generally and absolutely will be like that: certainly no, Internet is a part of my life.’

Advertising is also another weapon of culture industry. We are bombed by advertisement in everywhere like when we watch match, or in cinema, or on the Internet, in every part of daily life. Furthermore, when we enter the any Internet sites like you tube we have to watch the advertising in certain time. There are a lot of brand and product advertising in everywhere and we lose ourselves within them. We are facing the media again in this point because the media is main communication tool for culture industry and capitalism as well and it transmits the message to people directly. For instance, media created the perception of beauty like being fat is not good, if you want to be handsome man you have to have muscles or beautiful women make up and she is liked. Immediately afterwards people go to the gym for making muscles and to give weight and also beauty products advertisements, muscle-enhancing advertisements increase rapidly and all these things are showed us by media in magazines, TV programs etc. All these examples are saying us clearly that we are living in hegemony of culture industry.

culture-industry-2

So, if we advert the theme of Black Mirror, there are a lot of same thing between in the series life and in our life. We can see that characters are living in hegemony of culture industry like us. Frankfurt School thinkers mentioned that extreme individualism that is created by capitalism will smash the family structure and we can see that in the series how the characters are exposed with loneliness and also they could communicate each other with their technological characters that are avatars and they could transfer their emotions each other with them. Also, we can see that in this series enforcement of advertising and sex films that make people fool. There is strong connection between technology and their life like our life and they have to generate energy for living and they are fulfilling their needs with their earned energy. In addition, we can see clearly that dreams and emotions are fake in the series like our daily life, they are connected with matters. All these things are happening in our life. The end of the movie the man revolted against system but he lost their opinion despairingly because he didn’t have choice. Consequently, I strongly believe that if we don’t aware the system of culture industry in our life and if we continue to consume, eliminate the nature without care, pedal are waiting to generate energy in the future for us.

Hate Discourse And Freedom Of Speech In Turkish Media

We are living in so cosmopolitan and complicated society in terms of forming kinds of races and religions. Many kinds of groups came the Anatolia and created this cosmopolitan society and culture along the history. I think these kinds of groups should live peacefully and can express their ideas democratically without harming other groups. But, we have a serious and dangerous problem which name is hate discourse and hate crime in media. Hate discourse is a basic building of hate crime and some groups are trying to prevent other’s ideas, freedom of thought or life with using hate discourse and hate crime and their most effective device is the media in order to press weak groups close. In this essay, I will try to explain what is hate discourse and hate crime, where comes from their origins and analyze them with some examples like excluding the Armenians and governments politics and I will try to examine with showing press news about them in the context of media. Also I will try to explain these concepts in the context of traditional media and social media.

If discourse to be defined firstly, it is community-onset ideology that is coded in the context of linguicity and it is nourished by society continuously throughout the history and create a conglomeration of knowledge. There are many kinds of discourses in the society like hate discourses, which include prejudices to other groups, revilement, cynic words and threats. According to Council of Europe accepted the definition of hate discourse in Committee of Ministers that is ‘’ the term ‘’hate speech’’ shall be understood as covering all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.’’ Also, Nafsika Papanikolatos defined hate discourse that ‘’Hate speech’’ is a moment in the process of forming national identities and its intensity varies depending on historical, social and political circumstances which may provide the conditions for establishing a more or less inflated national ‘self’ as against the ‘others’. We can make an inference from these definitions that the key point of hate discourse is that excluding of minority and ignoring their rights by strong groups and majority in society by using stereotyped words and invectives. Prof. Dr. Yasemin İnceoğlu states that the message of ‘nowhere to live in society’ is reflected again and again to groups who are targeted by other groups by using hate discourse which is starting point of hate crime process and manifestation of impatience. So, we cannot mention that there is a democracy in our society and we are living in place where exist freedom of thought in hate discourse atmosphere which is common things in society. In addition that there is not enough legislation and enforcement for this problem and government should consider this issue if it think itself as a democratic and protect the human rights.

hate_speech

The effective and important tools of hate discourse are certainly the media in order to put out of action other groups. We can analyze the media in the context of traditional and social media in terms of using the hate discourse and speech. Today, we can openly see that our media groups have different and distinctive thoughts and publishing their news not objectively in order to manipulate the people and create a distinction between them. Some of them are so extremism of this situation and they are using every kind of hate speech and discourses in their daily news about groups of people or politics. Also, the media is publishing news that involve derogatory and eliminative contents about the minorities, foreign people and people who don’t like the government and protest against it and also showing that these groups are carrying potential risks and threats against the country. In addition the traditional media are legalizing violence and derogatory behaviors against the groups who are marginalized by media itself and can separate easily the citizens as right-left, Kurdish-Turkish, alawite-sunnite, Armenian-Turkish, Muslims-infidels, normal people-member of LGBT etc. So, this perceptiveness of media that ignore freedom of speech and create conflict atmosphere is not appropriate for professional journalism ethics. According to Society of Professional Journalism Ethics rules that the journalist should defend human values like peace of society, democracy, human rights, social progress and freedom of nations and also should stay out of from sensibilities of journalism that legitimate war of society, violence, hate, discrimination, racism and pressure on freedom of speech. Furthermore, Prof. Dr. Yasemin Inceoğlu is emphasizing that Turkish media and their news about people who feels themself as a minority and when they criticize the government and it’s policy, the press groups that are conservative and nationalist are beginning to apply pressure on these people or groups with their news that involves hate speech, threats (leave a country or face the consequences) something like that and this situation also destroy the democracy and freedom of speech as well.

Also, there is a different and strong tools of hate discourse, which are social media and Internet. It a little bit different from the traditional media tools because, media users are active in terms of sharing their ideas, other’s thoughts or commenting anything they want instead of being passive in participation of media. Prof. Dr Mutly Binark who is a lecturer at Başkent University claims that hate discourse in social media has same content with traditional media but sharing of hate discourse contents are multiplied rapidly by users or groups in new media in order to obliterate freedom of speech, bridge of friendship and exclude each other. So, she is adding that hate discourse in new media is more dangerous, effective, popular and ordinary than hate discourse in traditional media because of this by showing examples from twitter and Facebook sharing. To give examples from the social media platforms those are some expression against minority groups in Facebook or twitter pages; ‘The Death for Kurdısh, Nasty Romany, Coward Jewish etc. In addition, some national values, name of Atatürk, religion values, Turkish flag etc. are used in order to get expedience and get more people to support their thought. So, thanks to this situation they are trying to make propaganda with suppression and threatening slogans in order to ban freedom of speech of other targeted groups.

hate-speech

Most of the people can be conservative and rush into extremes about any matters like politics, religions, moreover sport in our society. So, they can make hate discourse easily based history, religions, distinction of sex etc. by using racist, ethno-nationalist, sectarian expressions. For instance, in the case of Hrant Dink, it is obvious fact that there is hate speech against Hrant Dink in traditional and social media. Before Hrant Dink was murdered, he wrote one of interesting article, which asserts Sabiha Gökçen was an Armenian origin. Then, especially nationalist newspapers news and their columnists made a pressure with news content and articles in order to draw reaction the communities about his thought and The Office of Commander in Chief make a statement about his news as well. This matter was talked in the season of discussion about Armenian genocide, which is in Turkey’s agenda and important issue in these days. One of specialist and researcher about this matter who name is Kemal Göktaş is emphasizing that this matter was discussed in the context of Atatürk nationalism and Turkish general staff perspective instead of discussing in the context of freedom of information and freedom of press. Actually, although this hate speech targets directly Hrant Dink, the underlying reason for this situation is clearly discrepancy of religion and ethnic identity in fact. So, hate discourse and speech create hate crime and it is obvious fact that there are many news about Hrant Dınk, which contains hate speech contents in their headlines as well, so that we can make an inference for this situation, media groups and press made Hrant lonely, show him as a target and marginalized him and this process ended up with conspiracy of Hrant Dink as a hate crime. If this matter is looked in this framework, government agencies and it’s press can ban easily freedom of speech in media with making propaganda and pressure. So this situation is also destroying freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Today, Foundation of Hrant Dınk is trying to struggle with racism, discrimination and marginalization in media and targeting to draw attention and make awareness about these issues.

Last but not least, today the government is rendering service to hate discourse with its politics in order to gain favour from conflict and discrimination. The Prime Minister Erdoğan is talking about problems or matters incoherently and differently when he go different place in Anatolia, so there is not certain thing to make a politics but there is a certainly hate speech that is made by government. In addition, the government is trying to interfere private life and also prevent freedom of protesting with using violence in contravention of the rules. Also, if we look at proponent media today, there is not any critics and everything is going in good way and their news are qualifying activists who don’t like government as a terrorist and traitor. Some of them is getting power from government politics and making news with hate speech that involves Islamic contents by ignoring groups who don’t agree government politics or criticize these politics. For example, most of important the press and media channels ignored to publish about correct and certain news about Gezi Parkı in Gezi Protests and also Prime Minister qualified the activist as a marauder, terrorist and groups who are organized by foreign forces instead of listening to activist citizens. After Prime Minister explanations, the day after partisan press also qualified these activists as similar with Prime Minister in their headlines that involves humiliator, exclusionary contents like Yeni Akit, Sabah, Akşam, Star, Yeni Şafak, Takvim etc. In social media, the group of Ak Gençlik made propaganda in Twitter and Facebook against activists and groups who don’t like governments. In addition, police arrested the people who share opponent thoughts against government and something about Gezi Events. It is clearly fact that government and its media channels are trying to block freedom of speech and also making hate speech with their discourse.

hate-speech-is-not-free-speech

As a result of these examples, there is huge distinction between hate speech and freedom of speech in traditional media or social media. Because, people or groups can use social media or choose to follow the traditional media, put into words their thoughts liberally but they can do these actions without abusing human values or using derogatory words. In this point, the press groups and journalist have big responsibility for this situation because they should adapt professional journalism rules and ethics and should be objective instead of dividing society with their news contents. Also, the government has big responsibility about this, because it should create liberal order in society terms of putting into words thoughts and ideas, also it shouldn’t block the freedom of press in terms of freedom of information. There is not exist legislation of hate discourse in our law and this problem should be taken care by government like taking care universal declaration of human rights. The problems of hate discourse should be analyzed in the strict sense and differentially by specialist and non-governmental organizations. Also, in my opinion citizens, the media and government should interiorize the perceptiveness of criticism and democracy without making discrimination and hate speech as well. Lastly, the only thing we can say using media for hate speech is not freedom of speech but it is fact that hate discourse triggers the hate discourse.

The Orientalism As A Discourse

If we look at the history of Europe especially before the 18.century, we can look easily that there is always otherization and differentiation between citizens who live European states. For examples, in Antique Greek people were separated like natives and stranger, Greek and barbarian, citizens and not citizens (slaves, women) and these distinctions were perceived naturally in Roman period as well. To give another example, Christians considered Muslims like lower people in middle age and they showed that in the Crusades, and also they scorned Jewish people in these times. Then, white and black people are separated in geographical discoveries like white is best, strong, beautiful and black is ugly, bad, weak etc. So, this otherization has been continued until today and Europeans who have always otherization in their history come up with concept of orientalism. I will try to analyze in this article that view of Edward Said about orientalism, view of other intellectuals for this concept and their critics, and also I will show representation of orientalism on İstanbul Timeless City presentation film and I will give some examples about how we internalize orientalism from our country and Indian.

First of all, to define orientalism, I think this concept is so complicated in terms of expressing eastern culture. This ideology was begun to be formed like structure of thought of Europeans bourgeoisie about east, how the west see the east, how the west interpret the east and a collection of general statements about western culture. According to orientalists, west is subject and east is object that was transformed by west like information object through various discourses and theories. Briefly, orientalism is east understanding that is controlled, managed and defined by west. But, in that point we can see easily that otherization is key concept of orientalism. According to Edward Said who criticized the orientalism in pessimist way intellectual people of Europe use this ideology against east regions in order to be acceptable reasons in colonialism in east of world. He described the orientalism as exertions of Europe, which contribute its hegemonic desires on eastern societies. For this reason, west generated own description of east and presented a negative image of the eastern in its movies, academic studies, art works etc. According to orientalist for his thought, they believe that west represents itself most advanced stage of humanity and the eastern is represented by western like devoid of using mind, numbness, sinfulness, addicted to sex, underdevelopment, uncivilized etc. European societies always say that it is necessary to develop and domesticate when they assault and interfere in order to exploit resources of east.

kitapsayfa1

However, although Edward Said described this concept in a pessimist way, there is also intellectual people who approach that orientalist is not like Edward Said’s representation completely like İlber Ortaylı, Mustafa Akyol etc. According to their ideas and I agree with them as well, we don’t need to approach in pessimist way like Edward Said, because there is some of orientalists who don’t have any insulting thought about eastern culture and they really admire eastern culture in terms of works of literature, art, science etc. instead of vilifying eastern. Also they believe that they contributed culture studies about eastern with their researches and discover unknown things literally and historically that are really important about way of eastern life. If we look at the situation in this term, we can see and absolutely know that almost every important invention passed western culture from the eastern like compass, gunpowder, scientific explanations, information about medicine and physic etc. and we can see easily that some of orientalists have respect and some of them ignore it and humiliate the eastern. In addition, Hasan Bülent Kahraman who is professor at Kadir Has University states that Edward Said benefited from Michel Foucault discourse ideology and he explain orientalism like relation between discourse which is generated by western and reality which is supported by people or intellectuals who don’t support orientalism. Also, that is really important point that orientalism as a discourse appeals in eastern states like Occidentalism that mean to aggrandize the western culture in terms of being modernity and having positive values in society life and this mission is undertaken by western bourgeoisies and they want to seem like west as modern and also they see the west as source of liberation.

After all these explanation about orientalism, if I specify this ideology my own words briefly, it is generated by western as negative and positive way as well and also presented us as a discourse in our all aspect of life or media but most of us don’t realize it. I strongly agree with İlber Ortaylı and Mustafa Akyol about orientalism and I think we don’t need to be pessimist in this issue but we should realize negative ways, which serve for desire of western in colonist and capitalist way on society. In addition, we can see easily that orientalism generate some discourse in our society like we have perception about that Europeans have everything and we don’t have them and ‘when we will have human being?’ and these discourse are supported by media and group of power in our country. WE can see like this situation in Indian society that they look themselves inferior in front of western and they emulate and aggrandize the western culture. For example, Indian women use making up products, which make them whiter than others. Also, their media and TV channels have western style of programs.

imperiaflex_0_0_0

To analyze ‘İstanbul Timeless City’ presentation movie in terms of orientalism, we can see some orientalist representations and there is two parts in movie that first represented east and second one represented west and it try to give message about distinction between western and eastern culture. If we think that Ministry of Tourism of Turkey prepared this video for presentation of our country in abroad, we can realize easily how we see eastern in front of western. There is sultan and his women in boat and they have fun with music, some of guy don’t have clothes on part of body, women are dancing with traditional clothes and women are used like having sexuality and beauty and all these representation is used and generated like reflecting eastern generally. Also, there is second part of movie that there is man and women who seems from western with their clothes in modern way (whom for it is modern that can be discussed). I watched this presentation movie of Turkey in almost every channel, and I welcome it naturally in terms of representing of own culture and us before I don’t know anything about orientalism. I believe that there are millions of people who don’t see and realize concept of orientalism in this movie. This situation is showing us that we internalize distinction between western and eastern culture without consciousness of orientalism. Also this situation show us that we have occidenalism ideas in our social life which is generated by orientalism as Hasan Bülent Kahraman say about it. To give an example like this orientalist movie, I have seen like these representations in Around The World In 80 Days, which is directed by Frank Coraci and product of U.S.A and Germany in 2004. In this movie, when Phileas Fogg who is main character of movie went to eastern region where is Ottoman Empire States he met with sultan and he faced with his exasperation and violence. Also, people who live in İstanbul were represented like rude, barbarian, womanizing and also their clothes are represented like in İstanbul Timeless City presentation movie. There are a lot of examples for this situation, which are reflected and used by Hollywood and European film institutes for imposing way of orientalism thinking.

I would like to say one of the interesting example before ending the this article about orientalism, which is given by Hilmi Yavuz in video about orientalism which happened in İstanbul between two women in ticket order for Hagia Sophia Museum. One of women who has short hair, short skirt, blouse and short jacket said other one who has sheets clothes that:

  • Is this order ticket for museum?’ other woman who is really surprised and said that:
  • ‘Are you Turkish? Woman who is short hair felt disturbed a little bit and responds her:
  • ‘ Yes, I am Turkish’. Other one said:
  • ‘ Wow, you don’t seem Turkish, I supposed you are foreign people.’ The other woman responded other one quickly:
  • ‘You don’t seem Turkish women too, I supposed you are Arabic’. Woman who has sheet clothes responded other one:
  • ‘Alhamdulillah, I am Muslim and Turkish as well.’ Other one:
  • ‘Yes, me too. ‘

We can find out from this example that there is otherization of women for each other and this is product of orientalism I think. There is differentiation like west and east in our society like theme of presentation movie of Turkey and we don’t realize that it’s part of orientalism. We can see a lot of examples like this conversation.

            As a result of this article, to point out orientalism briefly according to depending on Edward Said ideas about it, we can see that this ideology is produced by western as a discourse in order to manage, and invade eastern culture and manipulate eastern culture in bad way like rude, lack of using thought, weak and stupid society etc. But also, this concept is used for academic studies and discipline in order to find out and recognize eastern culture in 19.century in Europe. Some of thinkers use it in bad way and racialist as well and some of them not. Also, otherization is origin of orientalism and it produced otherization, which contributes differentiation in eastern society. We can clearly see these explanations in the İstanbul Timeless City presentation movie as an example of representation of orientalism.

Mustafa Yılmaz

RESOURCES

Media and Simulation

Today, media have important role on publics and the media can shape easily societies for sake of any concept or worldviews. It is inevitable fact that media also can manipulate or give important information for us in every day life. In this point, Jean Baudrillard who is French sociologist, philosopher, cultural theorist and thinker of postmodernism asserted the concept of simulation, which is transferred by the media, which is used by some of the power or governments. Also, he has asserted social theory for consumption. I will try to explain and analyze that connection between media and his idea of sımulation, relation between simulation and reality with some examples like movie of The Death of President.

death_of_a_president

The movie which name is ‘The Death of President’ is a formally clever fake documentary directed by Gabriel Range mentioned that murder attempt for George Bush who is president of U.S.A. in meeting for Economic Club of Chicago. We can see here, in this movie there is fake of murder that is reflected by the media to citizen of U.S.A. We can see that this murder has come true according to Iraq war and also this fake documentary is produced according to this war. In this point, if I explain the concept of simulation which is hyper reality of something instead of duplication or pretending something. According to Jean Baudrillard, attempting to murder of presidents like Johnson, Nixon, Ford maybe Bush etc. was arranged for poverty of power and for proving legitimacy of government itself or protection of power and these ideology or thinking is reflected for publics or citizens thanks to the media. Also I can say that this fake documentary can be produced for trying to prove legitimacy of war in Iraq because one of the Muslim who name is Jamal and he was accused for murder attempt of President and arrested by the police and every media channels are publishing these news about Jamal. So we understand from this documentary that these are simulation of power or government like much the same thing with attempting murder of Turgut Özal and Süleyman Demirel in our country. These are simulated scenario of conspiracy like bomb attack, terrorist movements like the attacks of 11 September. This concept can be really complicated because we don’t know that who do this or which source of power does it and why. But I think these are the game of capitalist order and I agree with Jean Baudrillard’s concept about this issue like Michael Foucault. Therefore, I think media is the key element for concept of simulation. I would like to analyze this with more examples.

I have been watched the movie which name is The Truman Show directed by Peter Weir in 1998. We can see easily that there is extinguishment of reality and there is creating of hyper reality. I think this movie is completely mentioned concept of simulation because there is fake of life that is published like TV program but Truman doesn’t realize it is fake and he suppose that this is my real life but it is not because his life managed by one of the film maker who tries to create own perfect universe for Truman and also millions of people admire this TV channel and everyone using the product which are promoted for advertising. Then, Truman realized everything and the story ended.

download

Also, I have been watched another movie which name is The Joneses directed by Derrick Borte and the film based on inseminating of consumption with the fake family who work for huge company and have everything like household goods, technological tools, cars, fashionable clothes and they try to affect their local community with creating these fake neighborhood relations. So, the company is using this tactic to reach target audiences in everywhere of country but headliners in the movie realize that is not real thing and they preferred normal life and story ended for them and I think that is hyper reality of consumption.

Consequently, I would like to say that when we open the TV news in home about civil war in Syria, what we see these and what we feel about this. There are bomb attacks, explosions, collisions, massacre of people by power of military or terrorists. We just watch these news and then when we change the channel like opening TV series –also I think these are presenting us relationship simulation in our social life- this war ended for us because publishing of war in TV channels desensitize us about war because war has come in possession of simulation that is hyper reality. I think there is strong relation between media and simulation in terms of transferring of concepts like war, power, hegemony, consumption for the publics and societies. There are many example of simulation in our daily life I think and I strongly believe that these are product of capitalism and it is a circle that surround us and we are watching these things with our desperation and hyper reality is continuing to change our world of view snakingly. So I have pessimist approach for this issue like Frankfurt School thinkers.

Big Brother Is Watching You!

If we look at history of world, nowadays and look around, we can see easily that people don’t have freedom and their own choice about their life exactly in history and today. Governance and it’s institutions or certain institutions which are generated certain people preclude our liberties and things that we want to do them. At this point, it is interesting thing that we support unconsciously or consciously these institutions, norms, and pattern of thoughts, ideologies that are presented us and we cannot escape from the system itself. Because, as Michel Foucault who is a French and postmodernist thinker in twentieth century said that power is everywhere and it comes from everywhere. Therefore, power is related with hegemony and discourse that are produced and constituted by groups of signs, groups of acts of formulation like media, social classes, institutional forms, structure of education etc. I think concept of hegemony is more general than discourse and discourse is part of hegemony. I will try to connect between these concepts and movie of 1984 and I will try to show some example from some events that we face them in our country.

1984 is a movie directed by Michael Radford and adopted from George Orwell’s book about fear utopia. Movie is beginning with this sentence: ‘‘who controls the past, controls the future, who controls the present, controls the past’’. To summarise the movie shortly, Oceania is fear of empire and the people who live in this country have to obey country’s rules word by word, there is no book reading, there is no love, intercourse etc. Governance has a power on citizens and controls all aspect of their life with cameras. Also, there is no freedom of press and dictatorship is censoring the press. Governance using way of propaganda to affect people with creating fake realities and it’s press is setting new agenda about something that is actually not exist like productions, developments etc. and publishing them with loudspeaker in everywhere. In addition, there is a class distinction between people like proleters, workers, members of party etc. So, we can see easily system of hegemony in this state of dictatorship.

George-Orwell-1984_2588198k

Today, we can easily face discourses that are created our society in our country. For example, our republic has launched by Atatürk instead of Ottoman Empire and he created new system of power and group, which is based on modern society, new alphabets, new principles etc. and people had to obey these rules. To give an example another example, we are watched by police with surveillance cameras in streets, squares and we believe that it is necessary for our security. This perception of security is created by governance itself to spy citizens and we feel safety and this is also discourse as well I think. Discourses also can be sentences that are created by society and media like ‘men don’t cry’, ‘each Turkish boy comes world as a soldier’, ‘men don’t wear pink’ etc. These examples represent that you cannot do anything against this thought because it is right. Therefore, I think there is something like obligation and certain rules in essence of hegemony and discourses because these have power and identify what people do or behave.

To refer another point in this article, people cannot think new way and read a different types of book that include different ideology in the movie and so, thought crime is death as you know. If we look at our country’s past, most of students, writers, and journalists were executed for the sake of having different ideas. So, there was no freedom of thought and authority censored press. If come to the present, when you write anything against government, you can attract attention easily in terms of determination by police. So, I think there is not certain freedom of thought or behavior like activity, although we use system of democracy. For instance: Gezi event.

e9e5ce39-5209-4297-b51c-ad235d85ff9c

As a result, if we look around, we can see easily that hegemony is continuing to live in every aspect of our life. We cannot escape from this system like culture industry. I personally believe that culture industry is a good example of hegemony as well. But, we don’t need to be pessimist like philosophers of Frankfurt School. Although, the system itself is continuing to flow, at least we can realize it with our information. But, there is one more question: what about others who don’t realize anything.

Mustafa Yılmaz

Bir Efsanenin Öyküsü: Taçsız Kral Metin Oktay

Geçmiş yıllardan bugünlere futbolun tarihsel sürecine niteliksel olarak şöyle dönüp bir bakalım. Günümüzde milyonlarca kitleleri peşinden sürükleyen, bu kitleler üzerinde duygu ve davranış açısından son derece etkili ve hayatımızda olmazsa olmaz bir ihtiyaç gibi algıladığımız bir oyun haline geldi futbol. Ekonomik anlamda da hem kulüplerin pazarlama faaliyetleri açısından hem de futbolcuların kazandıkları açısından çok büyük paraların döndüğü bir endüstri haline dönüştü. Özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkeler bu futbol yarışında kendisine yer edinmek açısından futbola yatırımlarını artırarak bu endüstrinin gelişimine ivme kazandırdı. Ülkemizde bir çok şehirde yapılmakta olan stadyumlar, bu endüstriden getiri sağlama adına yapılmış büyük yatırımlar bir örnek teşkil ediyor.

Böyle büyük bir endüstri haline dönüşmüş olan futbol içinde aynı zamanda tehlikeli birtakım riskler barındırıyor. Bunların en başında futbolda ve futbol dilinde şiddet geliyor. Özellikle Türkiye’de futbol diline baktığımızda hem basında hem tribünde hem sokakta futbolun bir oyun olmaktan çıktığı, bir savaş haline dönüştüğü açık ve belirgin bir şekilde gerek basın başlıklarından gerek yaşanılan olaylardan görülebilir. Peki nasıl bu noktaya geldik? Daha önceki yıllarda Türkiye’de basın dili şiddeti çağrıştıran bir nitelikte değildi, Futbolun nevi şahsına münhasır bir güzelliği vardı. Galatasaray-Fenerbahçe maçlarında taraftarlar tribünlerde hep bir arada maçı seyrederlerdi. Bunun yanında neden diğer spor dallarını bir kenara atıp sırf futbolun üzerine bu kadar eğilim gösterdik o da ayrı bir tartışma konusu.

futbolda-şiddet.jpg

Böyle büyük sektörün içinde rol almış, emek gösterip efsaneleşmiş isimler hep var ve var olmaya da devam ediyor. O halde Taçsız Kral filmi ile Türkiye’nin anayasası ile en özgürlükçü dönemi, televizyonun henüz evlerimize uğramadığı, basın özgürlüğünün doyasıya yaşandığı, hippi akımının gençleri sardığı ‘Golden Sixties’ dediğimiz 1960’lı yıllara doğru siyah beyaz bir yolculuğa çıkalım. Yönetmenliğini Atıf Yılmaz’ın üstlendiği başrollerini Metin Oktay, Gönül Yazar, Ajda Pekkan, Ayten Gökçer ve Erol Taş’ın üstlendiği Taçsız Kral filmi futbolda yeteneği ile dönemine damgasını vuran Metin Oktay’ın azim ve başarı dolu futbol yolculuğunun siyah-beyaz gösterimi ile karşımıza çıkıyor. Fakir bir aileden gelen Metin Oktay daha çocukluğunda futbolcu olmayı gözüne kestiriyor ve büyük bir tutku ile azmediyor. En dipten, sıfırdan, yokluktan başlayan bir başarı öyküsü. Şüphesiz bu başarı öyküsünde Baba Murat’ın yardımları, Metin Oktay’ın futbol oynama azmi ve futbola sadakati son derece etkili. Damlacıkspor, Pamuk Mensucat, İzmir Spor, Galatasaray, Palermo ve son olarak yine sadık olduğu Galatasaray’a dönerek burada son bulan bir hikaye.

metinoktay-77

Filme dönüp baktığımızda geçmişteki futbol oyunu ve bu oyundan kazanılan para ile günümüz futbol oyunu ve bu oyundan kazanılan paranın ne kadar farklı olduğunun görülmesi açısından güzel bir örnek. Arkadaşları ile restorana giden Metin Oktay, Gönül Yazar ve arkadaşları ile buluşuyor, ve hesabı ödeyemiyor. Günümüzde Galatasaray gibi büyük bir kulüpte oynayan bir futbolcunun böyle bir durumla karşılaşmasının imkansız olduğunu hepimiz biliyoruz.

Film aynı zamanda futbolculara öğüt veren bir nitelikte karşımıza çıkıyor. Metin Oktay’ın futbol azmini unutup, sadakatini bırakıp gece hayatını seçmesi ve bunun sonucu futbol performansının düşüşü, bir futbolcunun hayatında olan kişi, yaşam tarzı ile futbol performansının doğru orantılı olarak ne kadar bütünleşik olduğunu gösteriyor. Hakkında yapılan haberler, yedek durumuna düşmesi, maçı tribünlerden seyretmesi kahramanımızın futbola olan sadakatini ve aşkını yeniden hatırlatıyor.

metin-oktay

Karmaşık ilişkiler hayal kırıklıkları, sakatlıklar, kalp rahatsızlığı bunların hiçbiri futbola olan aşkına, sadakatine galip gelemiyor. İzmir’e döndürmek için ‘’Ya ben ya Galatasaray’’ diyen İzmir Spor başkanının kızı olan eşini ve önüne açık çek bırakan, büyük paralar teklif eden kayın pederini geri çevirecek kadar vefalıydı Metin Oktay. Bana kalırsa futbol kariyerindeki başarısına futbola olan bu vefası sayesinde ulaşıyor. Yani para için değil, sırf futbol oynamak için, azim, sadakat ve sevgi ile futbol oynaması, parayı ikinci planda tutması, takımına bağlılığı ve sadakati açısından örnek bir oyuncu olarak karşımıza çıkıyor.

Filmde yer almayan ama belki de tekrar Taçsız Kral filminin çekilerek filme eklenmesini istediğim Metin Oktay’a dair örnek bir olay daha var. Şüphesiz ki bu olay Metin Oktay’ın jübile maçı. Tarih 23 Ağustos 1969, yer Mithatpaşa Stadyumu, Galatasaray-Fenerbahçe maçında futbolculuk kariyerine son veren Metin Oktay, dönemin Fenerbahçeli senyör lakaplı oyuncusu Can Bartu ile maçın sonlarına doğru formalarını değiştirmesi ve Can Bartu’nun Galatasaray, Metin Oktay’ın Fenerbahçe için ter dökmesi.

Ezeli Rekabet Ebedi Dostluk – Galatasaray – Fenerbahçe (izlemek için tıkla)

Türkiye’deki futbolda şiddet olaylarından, basın dilinin şiddet eğilimi olmasından yakınan Fenerbahçe taraftarı olarak bu olaydan çıkardığım çok güzel şeyler var. Bütün kulüpler ve taraftarlar adına örnek alınması gereken bir olay. Ebedi dostluk, ezeli rekabet kavramlarının en güzel örneği belki de bu jübile maçı. Fakat bugün ne yazık ki futbol oyunu, taraftar için kavga ve ölüm ile sonuçlanan bir girdap; kulüpler ve şirketler için para kazanma adına oluşturulan bir senaryo; basın ve yayın kuruluşları için haber dili, tartışma ve yorum programları ile kitleleri bu senaryoya dahil etme eğilimi taşıyan bir para kazanma aracına dönüştüğü, ebedi dostluk kavramının unutulduğu, spor ve etik ilkelerinin hiçe sayıldığı bir alan haline geldiğini söylemek mümkün.

Fakat böyle bir futbol ortamını teneffüs etsek bile hep iyiye doğru ilerlemede umudumuzu yitirmemek ve bu umudu yeşertip, yaymak açısından biz iletişimcilere çok büyük görevler düşüyor. Futbolda şiddet kavramına dikkat çekilmesi ve bu şiddetin ortadan kaldırılması adına, dostluk algısının oluşturulması adına maddi kaygılar gütmeyen sosyal iletişim kampanyaları oluşturulabilir. Bunun yanında geleceğin iletişim mimarları olan bizler, futbol iletişiminin herhangi bir kanadında çalışırken bu sosyal sorumluluk faaliyetlerine ön ayak olmayı, destek vermeyi ve devam eden bu şiddet senaryosuna alet olmamayı misyon edinmemiz gerekiyor. Tıpkı Metin Oktay’ın futbola olan aşkı ve sadakati ile parayı ikinci planda tutması gibi. Futboldan zevk alan, basın yayından, taraftarına, yöneticilerden futbolculara, yedisinden yetmişine Futbol tarihinde Metin Oktay’ın öyküsüne benzer ders çıkarabileceğimiz pek çok örnek var. 60’larda yaşamayan yaşamamıştır diye bir makale okumuştum. 60’lı yılların özgürlüğünü, sıcaklığını, dostluğunu hayatımızın her alanında yaşamak dileğiyle. Sizi Suavi Karaibrahimgil’in 1960’lı yılları anlatan keyifli şarkısı ile baş başa bırakıyorum.

Suavi Karaibrahimgil – Sene 965 ve mevsim sonbahar (izlemek için tıkla)

Filmi İzlemek İçin Tıkla

Mustafa Yılmaz