Declaration of Independence was drafted by Thomas Jefferson on 28th of June 1776. This draft is very important and a milestone in today’s U.S.A’s political and social life. By declaring this paper, the founders of the U.S.A who were mostly former British citizens, not only declared their independence against Great Britain, a country that had colonized the most of the world from American continent to the Eastern Asia starting from the late 18th century onwards, but they also paved way to other independence movements and revolutions in some colonies and in some strictly centralized states of that time such as France. In the light of this information, this paper is an attempt to elaborate the Declaration of Independence of the U.S.A and try to explain the reasons of both the American Revolution and the philosophy behind the establishment of an independent American state. In order to do this, firstly I will give brief information about the Industrial revolution. Secondly, I will focus on some important phases and sayings in the declaration.
As it is stated above, Great Britain is the state where the industrial revolution first started in the world. Industrial Revolution was a real breakthrough not only in the world’s economic system but also in the political system. Industrial Revolution started by a change in the mentality of the big landowners i.e. aristocratic class in the Great Britain. Along with the small merchants, they sold their lands and made investments in the country by opening up factories. They started to manufacture the goods in their factories and sell them to the different places of the world. However, the lack of raw material posed an important problem to the factory owners. In order to eliminate this problem, Britain started to colonize different places in the world which were rich in raw materials and had cheap labor force. Colonization process had three aspects. Firstly, it provided cheap raw materials and labor force to factory owners in Britain. Secondly, it provided British merchants new markets for selling their goods. Thirdly, as a result of the colonization Great Britain became an empire which ruled almost two thirds of the world. In the heyday of the colonization process Britain even called “the empire in which the sun does not sank.” Northern America was also an important colony of the Great Britain. Many British merchants migrated to America in order to make investments and use the raw materials and cheap labor force. Actually, it was the British immigrants that initiated the American Revolution.
When we look at the reasons of the American Revolution which led to American Revolution and its official declaration it is better to focus on our primary source. In the sayings of the declaration we see a reaction to the British rule. As a result of injustices and discrimination that British-Americans faced under the British rule, founders of U.S emphasized especially the importance of individual liberty and equality. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”[1] Actually the political philosophy of the declaration which is liberalism was not a new phenomenon at that time. John Locke and other contemporary thinkers had already mentioned the concepts like individual liberty, right to live etc. In a sense, the ideas which emerged from Britain led to the independence movements in her empire. In addition, in the declaration the main reasons of the resentment against the Britain are also mentioned one by one. Basically, British-Americans condemn the monarch not to reach any consensus in some core issues. The irreconcilable attitude of the monarch led to dissident movements in the continent. In order for better understanding the reasons and level of resentment it is better to quote some saying from the declaration. “He has refused to assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”[2] There is no doubt that through analyzing those parts we can reach the conclusion that the monarch had the sole power in his hand and use it mostly to suppress the people. It is very much opposite of today’s U.S political system. Monarch used every opportunity and his power to make people subject to him. Eventually, this situation led to the total partition of American territory from Great Britain. Representatives of 13 states of the Northern America which were Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut signed this declaration and U.S officially declared its independence after a long struggle with Britain.
When we take a glance to the political system that was established after the independence we se that a consensus had been reached among the founders of the U.S. As a reaction to the centralized British rule they first established a confederation among the 13 states. The Articles of Confederation was accepted with some reservations of the northern states.Articles of Confederation were accepted in order to prevent the establishment of any further monarchy in the U.S territory. According to the Articles of Confederation every state is independent in formulating their foreign and domestic policies as well as trade relationships with each other. As the time passed, this had created problems in the U.S.The lack of coordination among the states makes it explicit the need for a new constitution and political system. In fact, this problem was solved by establishing a federal system instead of confederation. More powerful centralized government and established collective foreign and trade policies make U.S to survive till this day. Although, some concessions were given to the supporters of the confederation through incorporating Bill of Rights as the first amendment to the constitution. The basic aim of Bill of Rights is to protect individual rights and liberties against the state. In addition, presidential system of government and checks and balances system was established in order to prevent a possible one man rule.
As noted above, liberalism is the basic philosophy behind the Declaration of Independence. In the following years onwards, liberalism has become both the political and economic system of the U.S.A. It is the basic pillar of the U.S political system. American political system gives very much importance to the individual rights and liberties. All those liberties are guaranteed by the U.S constitution.
To sum up, Declaration of Independence is the starting point of the establishment of U.S.A. It also became a model to other revolutions and independence movements throughout the world. U.S federal state also developed the philosophy of liberalism and successfully incorporated it into its system both in economic and political system.
Doubtlessly Genevan thinker Jean Jacques Rousseau is one the most important names of philosophy who gave inspiration to many other important thinkers including famous Karl Marx. Rousseau is often accepted as the leading thinker of the French Revolution and is known with his masterpieces “The Social Contract”, “Emile” and “Confessions”. Rousseau is unique in many terms and a lot of researches had been made to clarify his thoughts that seem sometimes conflicting with each other. Lucio Colletti is a famous Italian philosophy professor who made many important researches analyzing links, relations between different philosophers and Rousseau. In this paper, I am going to analyze Colletti’s article “Rousseau as Critic of Civil Society” and I am going to express my own ideas related to Rousseau and his critic of modern civil society.
Colletti begins by stating two aims of his article; to give an account of Rousseau’s works and to provide an interpretative sketch of Rousseau to the problem of modern civil society. In order to show the importance of Rousseau the writer reminds us that many revolutionary, anti-imperialist leaders of Asia and Africa even the famous Fidel Castro of Cuba were heavily affected by Rousseau and were carrying Rousseau’s Le Contract Socialin their pockets when they were making revolutions. Colletti continues by stating Rousseau’s thoughts on morality and politics and claims that according to Rousseau political task is to achieve the transformation of society from evil to good. In Rousseau’s thoughts, the evil gets out from social injustices and politics can be a solution to this problem. He thinks that politics founds morals and prevails over spirituality. He also adds that evil derives from society not from God. He rejects the idea of “original sin” and thus subverts the very basis of secular Christianity (Colletti, pg 144). That is why, he was accused and severely criticized by the Archbishop of Paris. The writer also mentions that placing the evil on society instead of God or individual is a radical change for the philosophy of 18th century. “He created, as it were, a new subject of responsibility, of imputability. This subject is not individual man, but human society” (Colletti, pg 145). This understanding orientates him to the idea of revolution because the evil which derives from society could only be destroyed by the total cure of the society by itself. In Rousseau’s understanding freedom is not individual but rather societal so, humans will only be free when they liberate their society. In other words, freedom of individual lies in the freedom of society. Colletti further claims that Rousseau’s ideas which transform the problem of evil into a critic of society are totally new and revolutionary for their epoch. As a consequence of these views, Rousseau believes that salvation can only be acquired through politics (he means through revolution) not by faith, religion.
Rousseau’s thoughts are also very different from his contemporary famous philosophers called Encyclopedists. Encyclopedists like Voltaire, D’Alembertand Diderotsaw the only problem of society as its mistake in organization. However, Rousseau thinks that the problem of society is based on a tricky contract made between people to end the state of nature period centuries ago. Colletti makes comparisons between different state of nature ideas of philosophers and that of Rousseau. For example, Thomas Hobbes thought that humans are selfish and power-seeking creatures from birth and the state of nature soon turned into the state of war in which “all was against all”. In order to end this chaotic situation people came together and made a contract to unify their power and to give it to a absolute monarch called Leviathan. In contrary, for John Locke the state of nature was a very peaceful process, like a state of innocence but in order to guarantee the continuation of this situation people came together and made a contract to form a state that will be responsible of their governance, security of their lives and their private properties. Rousseau’s state of nature conception is much more different than Locke and Hobbes’ conceptions. Rousseau thinks that “the state of nature is not a moral condition but a state of innocence, purely animal condition, beyond the distinction between good and evil” (Colletti, pg 150). So, for Rousseau a man in the state of nature is not a man but rather a natural being who lacks socialization. He does not know how to thing, how to act, how to create relationships with his own kind but only possess some basic instincts. In other words, natural man is only “potentially man”. It is also discussable that whether Rousseau thinks of the state of nature as a hypothetical situation, thought experiment or a real historical period. Let us now look at how this tricky contract, this unfortunate event that would disrupt all human relationships, society took place?
According to Rousseau, the establishment of this tricky contract took place in four steps. In the first phase, men who live in isolation as parts of nature began to associate, to collaborate and to create a degree of provisional order. In the second phase, men made a technical progress and began to build shelters, houses for themselves. Families were formed and patriarchal period started. The socialization of men developed rapidly. In the third phase, men totally lost their state of nature characteristics and dealt with labour and thoughts. Due to their use of reason, men created language and developed their relationships. Men also discovered “division of labour” which would help them to pass from “subsistence economy” to the “economy of productive development”. They also dealth with metallurgy and agriculture. Rousseau said “It was iron and corn which first civilized men, and ruined humanity” (Colletti, pg 153). Due to this productive economy surplus occurred and private property understanding began to settle in men’s mind. In the fourth and the last phase, in order to keep their wealth, private properties men came together and made a social contract. However, this contract was an iniquitous, unfair one because it legalized social injustices which are sources of evil for Rousseau. This legalized inequality was not derived from natural differences between men but rather from their wealth proportions. Rousseau always claimed that although men have inequalities from birth (some are born stronger, some are wiser), these differences are very small and derive from the nature. However, injustices that were legalized in the tricky social contract were only based on money, wealth and there was a huge gap between rich and poor. Adam Smithalso thinks like Rousseau in this subject and for showing evidence he says “A much greater uniformity of character is to be observed among savages than among Civilized nations” (Colletti, pg 155). Up to this point, Rousseau and Smith share similar views. However, Smith thinks that division of labour is a good thing because it will increase productivity. Although increase in the production will also increase the gap between rich and poor, it is still a good thing because “the benefit will become general”. In other words, when a country develops and gets wealthier, everybody will gain from this situation. However, for Rousseau one man’s wealth arises directly from the impoverishment of another and that is why division of labour only favours rich people. Marx also makes contribution to this topic and asserts that the benefit should be measured by relative gains not by absolute gains. So, Rousseau explains in this way why the social contract was tricky and how the corrupt, deceithful man of modern civil society was born. “... the origin of society and law, which bound new fetters on the poor, and gave new powers to rich; which irretrievably destroyed national liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality, converted clever usurpation into unalterable right, and, for the advantage of a few ambitious individuals, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour, slavery and wickedness” (Colletti, pg 165).
Another controversial issue about Rousseau is that whether he invited society to savagery or not. Although Voltaire said “He wants to walk on four legs” about him in my opinion the basic motive of Rousseau for defending the natural and primitive life was not that simple. Rousseau wanted to go back to natural, savage life because he thought that in order to demolish this corrupt society legalized by the tricky contract, we should go back to the conditions of the state of nature and to make a new and fair contract. In addition, Rousseau believed that as long as you live in this corrupt society you will be corrupted too. That is why he said “Man is born free and is everywhere in chains”. Society corrupts us day by day by using many institutions like schools, public offices and the only way to escape from it, is to live in isolation, in the nature. Rousseau wrote Emile with these ideas and advised people to educate their children themselves in the nature not by sending them to schools where they will slow by slow begin to be corrupted.
Rousseau also criticizes the British parliamentary system of his time. He said; “The people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing” (Colletti, pg 183). Rousseau believed that the just government should just be a “commission” that will govern the society according to general will. Here, we should discuss Rousseau’s views in more detail. I think that Rousseau understood that the parliamentary system was a failure (still a failure for many people) for society in its efforts to govern itself. Rousseau saw that this separation between the government and the society will always result in the torn of society and executive power. So, in order to prevent this the only way that seems possible is to use direct democracyin which all people will be active in executive process. But how we can apply direct democracy for countries having millions of population? So, Rousseau favoured a commission that will be just responsible of putting into action the decisions of the general will. I guess we can discuss the internal structure of communist parties here. Politburo[1]was also thought to be a commission of the Communist party which represented the Russian proletarian society. However, starting from the 1930’s, the Politburo began to act like the sole decision-maker and the general secretary of the Communist Party who was Stalin at those years started to act like a dictator. From Rousseau’s perspective, this shows that 1917 Bolshevik[2] revolution led by Lenin did not achieve to make a fair contract between Russian people and to save people from their deceithfulness at least not Stalin.
We can further discuss how people can make a new, fair contract after a revolution because all people making the revolution lived in the “precontract” period too and they were corrupted by the society. Then, I think it would not be irrational to assert that corruption will appear again after the just contract and the society would soon transform into its ex-condition. So, I think that from Rousseau’s perspective, to restart again from the beginning, from zero is only possible when everything related to the previous regime were destroyed. This will lead us to anarchism[3] (also to nihilism[4]up to a some degree) but still does not completely solve the problem. Because even all things related to previously system were destroyed, there would be still people left from the ancien regime. So, I guess for Rousseau it would be possible only if people who were able not to be corrupted in the ancien regime by living in isolation and in the nature would be alive after the revolution. In this case, people would have chance to start from the beginning, to establish a better world.
I think Colletti is right in saying that Marx and Lenin added few things to the ideas of Rousseau because when we analyze Rousseau, we see how he was close to form a comprehensive and consistent theory like Marxism. Rousseau was a great man who saw the negative development of modern society with increasing importance of wealth, spoiled human relationships and Enlightenment ideas that force humans to work like they were racing with everybody else. Developments in sciences (primarily in medicine) are good things but only if they are used for the sake of humans. Nobody could deny that the myth of progress and this commercial, competitive understanding of Enlightenment dragged our civilization to imperialism, to wars, to the emergence of atomic bomb.
Ozan Örmeci
[1]Politburo: The chief political and executive committee of a Communist party.
[2]Bolshevik: A member of the Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party that seized power in that country in November 1917.
[3]Anarchism: The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
[4]Nihilism: 1-) Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief. 2-) The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
Nazım Hikmet Ran hiç kuşkusuz ki Türk edebiyatının en tartışmalı ve önemli isimlerinden biridir. Türk şiirine kazandırdığı bir çok yenilik ve özgünlük dışında Nazım Hikmet aynı zamanda dünya çapında ünlü bir sanatçı haline gelmiş ve siyasi görüşleri nedeniyle hayatı boyunca bir çok sıkıntıya katlanmıştır. Nazım’ı okumak ve anlamak için tabii ki siyasi görüşlerini bilmek gerekmektedir. İnançlı bir komünist ve coşkulu bir anti-emperyalist olan Nazım’ın şiirlerinden ideolojisinin izlerini bulmak zor değildir. İdeolojik tarafı bir yana dursun, Nazım Hikmet özgünlüğü, müthiş dizeleri ve tüm dünyanın övdüğü insanlığıyla ülkemize çok şey kazandırmış ve 2002 yılı UNESCO tarafından tüm dünyada “Nazım Hikmet yılı” olarak ilan edilmiştir. Bir çok sıkıntının kucağında, başarıya aç ülkemizin yetiştirdiği belki de en yetenekli evlatlardan biri olan Nazım, maalesef siyasi görüşleri nedeniyle uzun yıllar ülkemizde bir tabu olarak kabul edilmiş ve insanların onu okumamaları için devlet tarafından bir çok engel konmuştur. Ne mutludur ki artık Nazım Hikmet kitapları tüm kitapçılarda serbestçe satılabiliyor ve hatta ilkokul kitaplarına onun kahramanlık kokan vatansever şiirlerinin eklenmesi tartışılıyor. Bu araştırmamda Nazım Hikmet’in hayatını ve “Kuvayi Milliye Destanı” eserini incelemeye çalışacağım. Ancak önce Nazım Hikmet’in kısa bir biyografisine bakalım.
Nazım Hikmet Ran 20 Kasım 1901 tarihinde Selanik'te doğmuş (aile çevresinde 40 gün için bir yaş büyük görünmesin diye bu tarih 15 Ocak 1902 olarak anılmış, kendisi de bunu benimsemiştir), 3 Haziran 1963'te Moskova'da ölmüştür. İlköğrenimini İstanbul'da Göztepe Taşmektep, Mekteb-i Sultani (Galatasaray Lisesi), Nişantaşı Numune Mektebi'nde tamamlamış (1914), orta öğrenimi ise, Heybeliada Bahriye Mektebi’nde yapmıştır (1918). Nazım Hikmet Bahriye'yi bitirdikten sonra Hamidiye Kruvazörü'ne stajyer güverte subayı olarak verilmiş, bir gece nöbetinde üşütüp zatülcenp (akciğer iltihabı) olmuş (1919), sağlığını kazanamayınca askerlikten çürüğe çıkarılmıştır (1920).Askerlikten ayrıldıktan sonra, İstanbul'un işgaline çok üzülen Nâzım Hikmet Millî Mücadele'ye katılmak üzere Anadolu'ya geçmiş, Bolu Lisesi'nde kısa bir süre öğretmenlik yapmıştır (1921). Rus devrimiyle ilgilenen şair, bir süre sonra Batum'dan Moskova'ya gitmiş ve Doğu Emekçileri Komünist Üniversitesi'nde (KUTV) ekonomi ve toplumbilim okumuştur (1922-1924). Yurda dönüşünden sonra Aydınlık dergisine katılmış, burada çıkan şiirlerinden ötürü hakkında "gıyaben" mahkumiyet kararı verildiğini öğrenince yeniden Rusya'ya kaçmış, af çıkması üzerine Türkiye'ye dönmüş ve bir süre Hopa cezaevinde tutuklu kalmıştır (1928).
Nâzım Hikmet daha sonra İstanbul'a yerleşmiş, çeşitli gazete ve dergilerle film stüdyolarında (ilk akla gelen İhsan İpekçi’nin sahibi olduğu İpek Film’dir) çalışmış, ilk şiir kitaplarını çıkarmış ve oyunlarını yazmıştır (1928-1932). Bir ara yine tutuklanmış, Cumhuriyet'in 10. yılı dolayısıyla çıkarılan af yasası ile serbest bırakılmıştır. Akşam, Son Posta, Tan gazetelerinde Orhan Selim takma adıyla fıkra yazarlığı ve başyazarlık yapmıştır (1933). Kara Harp Okulu öğrencileri arasında propaganda yaptığı iddiasıyla yargılanmış, Harp Okulu Askeri Mahkemesi'nce 15 yıl, ardından Donanma içinde faaliyette bulunduğu iddiasıyla da Donanma Komutanlığı Askeri Mahkemesi'nce 20 yıl olmak üzere toplam 35 yıl hapis cezasına çarptırılmış, cezası Türk Ceza Kanunu'nun 68 ve 77 maddeleri uyarınca 28 yıl dört aya indirilmiştir (1938). Demokrat Parti'nin iktidara gelmesinden sonra çıkarılan af yasası (1950) kapsamına alınması için açılan büyük bir kampanyanın ardından, hukukçular yasal yollara başvurmuş, bu arada Nâzım Hikmet de hapishanede açlık grevine başlamıştır. Sonunda Nâzım Hikmet'in geri kalan cezası affedilmiş ve şair 13 yıl hapislikten sonra hürriyete kavuşmuştur. Serbest bırakıldıktan sonra iş bulamayan, kitap çıkaramayan şair için bu kez askerlik kararı alınmış, 50 yaşında ve hasta olan Nâzım Hikmet çok zor durumda kalmıştır. Öldürülmekten korkan şair, kız kardeşinin kocası Refik Erduran'ın yardımıyla bir motorla Karadeniz'de seyreden Romanya bandıralı bir gemiye binerek Türkiye'den ayrılmıştır. Bundan sonraki hayatı baskı altında ve zorunlu Sovyet propagandası yapmakla geçmiştir. Nâzım Hikmet, 3 Haziran 1963 tarihinde Moskova'da ölmüştür.
Nâzım Hikmet, hece vezniyle yazdığı ilk şiirlerini Yeni Mecmua, İnci, Ümit ve Celal Sahir (Erozan)'ın çıkardığı Birinci Kitap, İkinci Kitap vb. dergilerinde yayımlamıştır. "Bir Dakika" adlı şiiriyle Alemdar gazetesinin açtığı yarışmada birincilik kazanmıştır (1920). Daha sonra Aydınlık, Resimli Ay, Hareket, Resimli Herşey, Her Ay gibi dergilerde yazan Nâzım Hikmet cezaevine girdikten sonra yıllarca yayın yapamamıştır. Ancak, 1940'lı yıllarda, Yeni Edebiyat, Ses, Gün, Yürüyüş, Yığın, Baştan, Barış gibi toplumcu dergilerde İbrahim Sabri, Mazhar Lütfi takma adlarıyla ya da imzasız olarak bazı şiirleri çıkmıştır. İncelemesini yapacağım Kuvayi Milliye Destanı İzmir'de Havadis gazetesinde tefrika edilmiştir (1949). Destanı Yön dergisi yayınlayarak (1965) Nâzım Hikmet'i yeniden okurlara ulaştırmıştır.
“Onlar ki toprakta karınca, suda balık, havada kuş kadar çokturlar; korkak, cesur, cahil, hakim ve çocukturlar ve kahreden yaratan ki onlardır, destanımızda yalnız onların maceraları vardır” dizeleriyle başlayan Kuvayi Milliye Destanı, Nazım Hikmet’in her çevreden büyük ilgi görmüş en önemli eseridir. Nazım bu eserinde Kurtuluş Savaşı ve Milli Mücadele’yi güzel Türkçe’si ve inanılmaz benzetmeleriyle destanlaştırmış ve ölen yüz binlerce Anadolu insanının anısına bir Anadolu kahramanlık hikayesi yaratmıştır. Doğrusunu söylemek gerekirse Nazım zaten var olan bu kahramanlık hikayesini kağıda dökmüş ve Türk insanı için unutulmayacak ölümsüz bir eser yaratmıştır. Nazım Hikmet’in hece vezninden iyi uzaklaşarak, Mayakovski etkisiyle kendine özgü serbest ve toplumsal ses yakalamaya başladığı dönemde yazılan Kuvayi Milliye Destanı, Türk edebiyat tarihinin klasiklerinden biri olarak kabul edilmektedir. Nazım bu kitabı giriş bölümü ve 8 bap (bölüm) halinde toplam 9 bölüm olarak yazmıştır.
Kitapta Kara Yılan, Arhaveli İsmail, Kambur Kerim gibi Nazım Hikmet’in Anadolu insanı ve kültüründen etkilenerek oluşturduğu bir çok karakter bulunmaktadır. Adapazarlı Kambur Kerim Kurtuluş Savaşında gazi olmuş bir Anadolu genciydi. Nazım’ın dizelerinde Kerim’in hikayesi okuyucuyu duygulandırıyordu.
Adapazarlıydı Kambur Kerim
…
335'te Kerim Eskişehir'e gitti,
Mektebe, teyzelerine ve dayısına
Dayısı şimendiferde makinistti.
Düşman elindeydi Eskişehir.
Kerim 14 yaşındaydı,
Kamburu yoktu.
Dümdüz, fidan gibi
ve dünyaya meraklı bir çocuktu…
…
Usta, ovdu Kerim’i bayıltıncaya kadar.
Sonra, zifte koydu bu kırılmış dal gibi çocuk gövdesini.
Yirmi gün geçti aradan.
Ve sonra bir ikindi vakti ziftin içinden
Kerim’i kambur çıkardılar.
Arhaveli İsmail ve daha bir çokları Kambur Kerim gibi Nazım’ın yarattığı, Anadolu insanından izler taşıyan karakterlerdi. Nazım toplumcu ve vatansever görüşleriyle zamanında kendisine komünist olduğu için büyük sıkıntılar yaşatmış Anadolu halkı ve Türk Devleti’ne armağan ediyordu bu destanı. Bu sizin eseriniz diyordu. “Ateşi ve ihaneti gördük” derken emperyalist devletlerin çirkin yüzünü vurguluyordu. Emperyalizme meydan okuyan Anadolu halkı geç de olsa uyanmış ve korktuğu için kaçtığını değil, kaçtığı için korktuğunu anlamıştı. Aynı İzmirli Ali Onbaşı gibi...
Ve İzmirli Ali Onbaşı biliyordu ki;
Tavşan korktuğu için kaçmaz
Kaçtığı için korkar.
Türk köylüsü için “Topraktan öğrenip kitapsız bilendir” diyor, onları övüyordu Nazım. “Ayın altından kağnılar gidiyordu, kağnılar gidiyordu, Akşehir üstünden Afyon’a doğru” gibi coşkulu ve güçlü dizelerdi bu destanı Türk edebiyatının en önemli eserlerinden biri haline getiren. Destanın son bölümlerinde şöyle yazıyordu Nazım;
Dörtnala gelip Uzak Asya'dan
Akdeniz'e bir kısrak başı gibi uzanan
bu memleket bizim.
Bilekler kan içinde, dişler kenetli, ayaklar çıplak
ve ipek bir halıya benzeyen toprak,
bu cehennem, bu cennet bizim.
Kapansın el kapıları, bir daha açılmasın,
yok edin insanın insana kulluğunu,
bu dâvet bizim...
Yaşamak bir ağaç gibi tek ve hür
ve bir orman gibi kardeşçesine,
bu hasret bizim...
KAYNAKÇA
-Hikmet, Nazım, “Kuvayi Milliye”, 2002, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları
