24 Ocak 2013 Perşembe

Three Slices of Bread Dropped out of Sky: one for Gracchus Brothers, the rest stolen by evil | Minor Details | News

Three Slices of Bread Dropped out of Sky: one for Gracchus Brothers, the rest stolen by evil
            Unluckily the two historical events took place in the Roman Republic in the late second century BC were not happy ending fairytales for Gracchus Brothers, Tiberius and Gaius.
            The brothers were born to an old and noble family. In 133 BC tribune Tiberius Gracchus introduced a bill to redistribute the public lands from patricians to peasants whose lands had been confiscated. Inspite of resistance of landholders who were also senators, the law was enacted. Thereafter Tiberius declared that he would be up for re-election as a tribune despite the fact that the office was annual, and he implied that new legislation would be introduced. Hereupon, senators accused him of intending to become a king. After having prevented his re-election senators clubbed to death Tiberius and his 300 supporters with the help of armed gangs. In this way the legal immunity of the tribuneship was violated and a political conflict ended in violent and bloodshed for the first time. From that time forth armed gangs featured in the Roman political arena. Although Tiberius’ land reform was in effect, it was never enforced.   
            10 years later Gaius became a canditate for the position of tribune in order to continue his brother’s activities. Younger Gracchus was elected as tribune two consecutive year (123 and 122 BC), and he enacted various laws in the public interest such as reviving the land reform and providing grain at reduced price for the public. But his law proposal to extend citizenship rights to Latin people was vetoed. Gaius failed to be re-elected the third time in 121 BC. The Senate repealed the laws enacted by Gaius immediately. In response, he and his supporters protested against this. On the grounds that the Republic got into danger  senators wasted no time in getting Gaius and his 3000 supporters killed.  
            Well then, what is the important consequence of these two tragic events? The Senate dug its own grave, so to speak since magisters were entitled to all kinds of authority by senatus consultum ultimum. As a matter of course the Gracchi failed at their attempts because all kinds of achievements could not go beyond a certain point without an army. Consequently, the failures of the Gracchi would be a good lesson for posterity. The Senate led a way to the authority, which would destroy the system being under the domination of the Senate. Armed forces would become decisive factor in politics, that is to say that those who held the army would keep the political power, disregarding the constitution completely.
            The Gracchus brothers might have been considered to sow the seeds of socialism. Both of them obviously had class consciousness, and they were idealists. However, they failed to foresee or underestimate that the Roman aristocrats would fight for protecting their benefits at any rate.
            What if the Gracchus brothers had succeeded in their struggles how would have been our lives? If so, three apples would have dropped out of sky: all for working class for once.
Best wishes,
Nilufer Akcay   

Dublin June 29, 2012 

No Room for Class Consciousness in an Utopia | Minor Details | News

No Room for Class Consciousness in an Utopia
Marcus Tullius Cicero is the man who lived in the period of the fall of the Roman Republic, the most active period of the Roman history, (106-43 BC). He was one of the important figures in his time as an orator, lawyer and statesman. His main contribution to the Roman world is to create a Latin philosophical vocabulary and terms, which are still used. His way of using the language was at the top level; his various speeches in the senate and the court showed that he was extremely impressive and successful orator. I always think that I had better fall into a cesspit than defend myself against Cicero in the court if I were a Roman citizen.
Besides his superior skill as an orator and lawyer, his political career was a remarkable one that Cicero placed politics above all his activities. At that time prominent offices were under the control of wealthy and aristocratic families. Although Cicero’s family was neither aristocratic nor wealthy, he was elected to each principal offices (quaestor, aedile, praetor) at his early age, and he finally became consul for the year 63 BC. He even received the honorary title, the Father of the Country (Pater Patriae).  After Julius Caesar’s assasination, Cicero became popular during the period of instability. However, he failed to escape from being murdered as the enemy of the state because of his opposition to Mark Antony. At this point I do not want to go into historical details.
Cicero was obviously a patriotic republican. But how come he became the enemy of the state once he was the Father of the Country? What did he overlook? It is likely to find the answer to these questions if we trace his state model in his On the Republic (De Re Publica). Firstly, Cicero bases the degeneration of the Roman Republic on lack of some noble values, and believes that the Roman Republic would overcome the difficulties if the Roman elites, particularly in the senate improved their character and put their individual virtue and social stability before their fame, wealth and so on. Secondly, he asserts that his model, the republic, was the superior to any other goverment because it brought monarchy, aristocracy and democracy together. But Cicero’s state model was in fact based on a system ruled by the aristocratic class, even if his idea of concordia ordinum was a coalition of the senate and equites.
This kind of system, concordia ordinum, is too unrealistic an even utopic , expecting a group of aristocratic families to protect the public interest! It is a Ciceronian utopia, which shows us Cicero had no class consciousness. I have used the term ‘utopia’ in particular, where individual and social identities, consequently class consciousness, are reduced to the lowest level possible. If a group of elite people had the power in a society, no matter it is a democracy, monarchy or aristocracy, they would by no means make concessions to the majority. They will never give up their gracious living. The idea of reconciliation between the classes, whose interests are completely opposite to each other, is just a vain attempt and wishful thinking.  
I want to draw your attentions to similarities to present days: the bottom line is the most important thing for the head or owner of a private company. Neither they care what their workers have been experiencing or suffering, nor they try to improve workers’ standard of living,  but they definitely care just the bottom line! Labour class is merely a tool to yield the profit to them. I think that Cicero, the Father of the Roman Country, had a lot of painful experiences to teach us already. Having class consciousness must be the primary mission for the labour class.
Best wishes,
Nilufer Akcay

Dublin June 7, 2012         

A new sitcom on the air: Breivik’s Media Circus | Minor Details | News

A new sitcom on the air: Breivik’s Media Circus
I have read some articles about Breivik’s case in the prominent Turkish newspapers recently. They gave a simple reason for Breivik’s massacre that he experienced some ‘tragic’ childhood traumas. One of the headings of the newspapers was ‘He massacred because of a Turkish man.’ According to the report, Breivik testified that the father of one of his friends, a Turkish diplomat, destroyed his bicycle when he was 7. A Pakistani vatman slapped him because Breivik, at 15 at that time, was leaning over the subway train. All those childhood incidents shaped his attitude towards the Muslims.
I do not know what to think about all these cheap and shallow news. Frankly speaking, I was not surprised, as a matter of fact, this is what I have expected. But I am still unable to stop myself from questioning about the purpose of these sort of news. Is it convincing that Breivik killed innocent, young and leftist Norwegians because of his sad childhood experiences? If so, why would not he have killed the Muslims, who seemed the reason of his horrible and unforgivable deeds? In addition to them, should we conclude that everybody would have the right to kill each other, if they had some bad experiences in their childhood or adolescence? If yes, I am afraid that the human race would be wiped off the face of the earth soon.
It is obvious that the media attempts to manipulate us as usual and to waste our time publishing such silly and popular news while we need transperancy in Breivik’s organised case in all respects. It is the time to clear up the mess and to explain some behind the scenes. Otherwise, we have to endure all the terrorist attacks, considering what sort of traumas children in Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan and so on have been experiencing for ages while their parents and relatives are mercilessly killed, raped and tortured every day. That is for sure that the media is never going to show mercy to them in the slightest degree as they have showed to Breivik so far.
To sum up, we are sick and tired of hearing of Breivik’s five star jail cell and his psychological disorders. All we want is a piece of truth.
Best wishes,
Nilufer Akcay

Dublin June, 7 2012

Some Questions and Concerns on Anders Behring Breivik: a New Cultic Anti-Hero | Minor Details | News

Some Questions and Concerns on Anders Behring Breivik: a New Cultic Anti-Hero
I met comrade Memet in a café in Temple Bar a month ago. While having a talk about political issues, he offered me to deliver a speech on Breivik in a public meeting. We couldn’t make it yet because of our daily activities, after all I have decided to put my thoughts, concerns and questions into writing. My aim is to call attention to the image of Breivik having been built by the media so far.
                After Norwegian killer had got arrested on 22 July 2011, the media eagerly followed him and tried to find out what kind of psychological problems he might have suffered. Psychiatric evaluations were published. Most probably various disputable claims on his psychological problems will be come up and discussed in the future. That may well be a common and understandable interest of all people, when somebody kills a large number of people in a cruel way and when it occurs in one of the most developed country in the world . However, as digging deep into the subject, we have realised that Breivik’s case is even more than a case of a serial killer so to speak.
                It is the easiest way to make Breivik a victim of physically and emotionally abused in his childhood. As known, the stories of victimised people always sell in the media. Furthermore, it has become a truism that serial killers are always the center of attraction considering women send letters to them and propose to them while the good are just good and boring enough. Hundreds of documentary films, movies and tv series have been made about serail killers. Willingly or unwillingly the media encourages people to feel sorry and to find excuses for them.
                But what about Breivik? Is he only a simple and clever killer? Is he capable of having planned such a kind of ‘elaborated’ massacre completely alone? My answers to all these questions are a big ‘NO.’ At this point I wonder how many people were interested in psychological problems of Osama Bin Laden or other terrorists after September 11 attacks; I wonder how many people thought that those attacks were planned by a criminal gang other than a terrorist group? I am not trying to justify anybody, groups or organisation. Besides, under no circumstances can terrorism be justified. Terror never pay attention to innocent people, children, countries and so on. It is an organisational and  violent action to achieve political aims just as Breivik did.
                After Breivik had been captured his manifesto and video records transpired, what a coincidence! He claimed that he had been planning the attacks for 9 years, all alone!. Somehow, he succeeded in drawing attention to his ideology which will cause the rising of new fascist movements all over the world in the near future. But why is the media still not going behind the clouds? Why are we directed to Breivik’s images in the media, but what kind of organisation is behind him instead? Otherwise, is it an attempt to create a new cultic antihero?
                Eichmann, a Nazi SS and one of the major organisers of the Holocaust said that he was merely a "transmitter" with very little power and never did anything, great or small, without obtaining in advance express instructions from Adolf Hitler or any of his superiors. Now Breivik is saying that he did what he did for the sake of his country. Evil arises from ordinary people who obey to rules without questioning. We have the right to know what is happening behind the scene.
Best wishes,
Nilufer Akcay

Dublin May 26, 2012 

Hüzün

Bu kavram, bu duygu bir türlü peşimi bırakmıyor, senelerce aklıma gelmiyor ama bir anda ve özellikle zayıf bir anımda beni yakalıyor. Hem gü...