Idol Breaking Intellectuals, Where Are You?
Güncelleme Tarihi:
Ertuğrul ÖZKÖK
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Nisan 02, 2005 13:12
I would very much like to thank Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan. Becuase he has helped to bring a renaissance to the world of Turkish caricatures, a world which had for a long time been having problems with creativity. The "cat" incident will for this reason be an important turning point in Turkish caricatures.
It's unlikely that I will forget this week's issue of the "Penguin" magazine for quite some while. There is a drawing on the cover of Prime Minister Erdogan. He is not in a cat costume or anything. It is the real thing, Erdogan in a suit and everything. But peaking out from underneath the suit jacket in the back is a cat's tail. The bubble coming out of his mouth says: "Good for you-look, when you want, you really can draw like a man."
I wonder what the lawyers and consultants who have taken up the case against the cat caricature of him think right now? Because the first result of their actions is this: Sales of the Penguin Magazine have risen 10%. Musa Kart has gone from a local to an international figure. All joking aside, the cat incident has brought a new excitement and pleasure to caricaturists' jobs. I am curious: I wonder whether the people around the Prime Minister have learned anything from this incident. It is always the best to stay strong against criticism by remaining open to it.
The cat incident has shown us once all a number of things. No matter how many democratic reforms we bring forth, we are unable to get rid of the negative characters that remain inside us. But is this just the case for the Prime Minister? What about the Orhan Pamuk incident?....Most of our intellectuals approached the incident from the viewpoint of the banning of the book by the provincial governor, and what this means for freedom of the press. But what about the following viewpoint? Orhan Pamuk came out with historical judgements which will leave the entire Turkish nation under suspicion. When I, along with some other writers, started to object to his words, we were nearly banished from society. But I ask, why is there freedom for Orhan Pamuk to say whatever he wants, while those who react to his words are seen as enemies of democracy?
Some say that the things said about Orhan Pamuk were very rude, very ignorant. But were the things that Pamuk said about Turkey any less rude? Were the figures he produced, the judgements he made in the interview, the products of a more refined mind? In a country where anyone including Ataturk can be criticized, it would appear that Orhan Pamuk can only be complimented, only be raised up. There you go, there's your recipe for a democratic and tolerant country, and by the intellectuals no less. People who try to criticize Orhan Pamuk's thinking even are labeled as fascist, chauvinist, and anti-democratic.
For this reason, in the Sutculer incident, it's not just the book-banning Provincial Governor, but the people around Pamuk who try to make it taboo to criticize him that we need to be aware of.
And so you see, there is this seemingly invisible link between the "cat enemies" and the taboo-constructers. We need intellectuals who are not afraid to break down the idols.
I wonder what the lawyers and consultants who have taken up the case against the cat caricature of him think right now? Because the first result of their actions is this: Sales of the Penguin Magazine have risen 10%. Musa Kart has gone from a local to an international figure. All joking aside, the cat incident has brought a new excitement and pleasure to caricaturists' jobs. I am curious: I wonder whether the people around the Prime Minister have learned anything from this incident. It is always the best to stay strong against criticism by remaining open to it.
The cat incident has shown us once all a number of things. No matter how many democratic reforms we bring forth, we are unable to get rid of the negative characters that remain inside us. But is this just the case for the Prime Minister? What about the Orhan Pamuk incident?....Most of our intellectuals approached the incident from the viewpoint of the banning of the book by the provincial governor, and what this means for freedom of the press. But what about the following viewpoint? Orhan Pamuk came out with historical judgements which will leave the entire Turkish nation under suspicion. When I, along with some other writers, started to object to his words, we were nearly banished from society. But I ask, why is there freedom for Orhan Pamuk to say whatever he wants, while those who react to his words are seen as enemies of democracy?
Some say that the things said about Orhan Pamuk were very rude, very ignorant. But were the things that Pamuk said about Turkey any less rude? Were the figures he produced, the judgements he made in the interview, the products of a more refined mind? In a country where anyone including Ataturk can be criticized, it would appear that Orhan Pamuk can only be complimented, only be raised up. There you go, there's your recipe for a democratic and tolerant country, and by the intellectuals no less. People who try to criticize Orhan Pamuk's thinking even are labeled as fascist, chauvinist, and anti-democratic.
For this reason, in the Sutculer incident, it's not just the book-banning Provincial Governor, but the people around Pamuk who try to make it taboo to criticize him that we need to be aware of.
And so you see, there is this seemingly invisible link between the "cat enemies" and the taboo-constructers. We need intellectuals who are not afraid to break down the idols.