Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Mehmet Yıldız

Quote by Mehmet Yıldız

“1937 yılında öncelikle Dersim toplumunun ileri gelenleri öldürüldü. Sivil grupların öldürülmesi "çatışma" olarak gösterildi; köyler bombalandı, yakıldı, ekinler ateşe verildi ve hayvanlara el konuldu. 1938 yılında bütün bu uygulamaların daha sistematik ve yaygın hale geldiğini görüyoruz.”

Quote by Mehmet Yıldız

Work

Dersim'in Etno-Kültürel Kimliği

Browse quotes and source details for this work. more

Author

Mehmet Yıldız

Browse famous quotes and profile details for Mehmet Yıldız. more

You May Also Like

“Güneş daha en başta Ra idi. Dersim'de 'Raa Haq' inancı olmuş, Güneş'e, ışığa, aydınlığa, ateşe giden yola dönüşmüştü. Bu yol üzerinden gidilen yoldan gelenekleşen yola dönüşmüştü. Dersim'de inanç itikat erkanını doğurmuştu. En başlarda Güneş, ateş, aydınlık, ışık kadın Tanrıçalarla temsil edilmişlerdi. Sonra Güneş'i (Ra'yı) temsil eden kadın Tanrıçalar düşman olarak ilan edildiler. Tanrılar onlara yani Güneş Tanrıçalarına, kadınlara savaş açtı, anaerkil düzen yıkıldı. Güneş, ateş, aydınlık, ışık erkek olarak görüldü. Bu defa kadın karanlık olarak görüldü. Karanlık Tanrıçasına dönüştürülerek yeraltı Tanrıçası oldu. Yukarı Mezopotamya'da ise ateşi, aydınlığı, Güneş'i temsil eden ateş ve ocak Tanrıçası Hassa, karanlığı temsil eden yeraltı ve karanlık Tanrıçası Taru Tanrıçaya dönüştürüldü.”

“Biliyorsunuz, sistem, cesitli dönemlerde devrimciler tarafindan cesitli analizlerle açiklandı. Yani kimi dönem komprador, patron aga devleti, kimi dönemlerde oligarsi, kimilerin- de fasizm, kimilerinde isbirlikçi, sömürgeci, isgalci ve ilhakçı gibi... Dersim'de solun atakta oldugu, darbenin ayak seslerinin henüz duyulmadigı günlerden birinde, bir grup devrimci bir köye giderek propaganda yapar. Anlatirlar, oligarsi sistemi böyle berbattir, söyle lanettir, söyle yikacagiz, böyle ezecegiz diye. Yaşi 80'e gelmis bir amca da kulak kabartıp dinlemektedir gençlerin hararetli tartsmasini. Fakat tartisma ve ajite iyice hararetlenmistir ve amca, cumlelerdeki haksizliga daha fazla dayanamayıp atlar söze: "Ero bra, bu Ali Qarşi dediginizin iki inegi, iki keçisi olan fukara adamın biridir, siz bu fukaradan ne istiyorsunuz?”

“How can man know himself? It is a dark, mysterious business: if a hare has seven skins, a man may skin himself seventy times seven times without being able to say, “Now that is truly you; that is no longer your outside.” It is also an agonizing, hazardous undertaking thus to dig into oneself, to climb down toughly and directly into the tunnels of one’s being. How easy it is thereby to give oneself such injuries as no doctor can heal. Moreover, why should it even be necessary given that everything bears witness to our being — our friendships and animosities, our glances and handshakes, our memories and all that we forget, our books as well as our pens. For the most important inquiry, however, there is a method. Let the young soul survey its own life with a view of the following question: “What have you truly loved thus far? What has ever uplifted your soul, what has dominated and delighted it at the same time?” Assemble these revered objects in a row before you and perhaps they will reveal a law by their nature and their order: the fundamental law of your very self. Compare these objects, see how they complement, enlarge, outdo, transfigure one another; how they form a ladder on whose steps you have been climbing up to yourself so far; for your true self does not lie buried deep within you, but rather rises immeasurably high above you, or at least above what you commonly take to be your I.”

“I consider a tree. I can look on it as a picture: stiff column in a shock of light, or splash of green shot with the delicate blue and silver of the background. I can perceive it as movement: flowing veins on clinging, pressing pith, suck of the roots, breathing of the leaves, ceaseless commerce with earth and air—and the obscure growth itself. I can classify it in a species and study it as a type in its structure and mode of life. I can subdue its actual presence and form so sternly that I recognise it only as an expression of law — of the laws in accordance with which a constant opposition of forces is continually adjusted, or of those in accordance with which the component substances mingle and separate. I can dissipate it and perpetuate it in number, in pure numerical relation. In all this the tree remains my object, occupies space and time, and has its nature and constitution. It can, however, also come about, if I have both will and grace, that in considering the tree I become bound up in relation to it. The tree is now no longer It. I have been seized by the power of exclusiveness. To effect this it is not necessary for me to give up any of the ways in which I consider the tree. There is nothing from which I would have to turn my eyes away in order to see, and no knowledge that I would have to forget. Rather is everything, picture and movement, species and type, law and number, indivisibly united in this event. Everything belonging to the tree is in this: its form and structure, its colours and chemical composition, its intercourse with the elements and with the stars, are all present in a single whole. The tree is no impression, no play of my imagination, no value depending on my mood; but it is bodied over against me and has to do with me, as I with it — only in a different way. Let no attempt be made to sap the strength from the meaning of the relation: relation is mutual.”