“To call a looted country ‘poor’ is to exonerate the thief.”
In this sentence, Şeref Oğuz was not targeting a word, but a perception.
Because “poverty” is a smokescreen. You can see it but you cannot choose it.
But “looting” leaves a trail. If you follow it, it leads somewhere.
The story we are told today is simple: Resources are limited, conditions are difficult, the world is bad.
But no one is asking the question:
Why is it that when people sit at the same table, some plates are always full and some are always empty?
If this country is a house, it is like a house whose door has been broken and the safe emptied.
Then someone comes along and says: “The house was already poor.”
No, no, no. The house wasn't poor. The house was robbed because it was unlocked from the inside.
“When you say ”poverty" the crime disappears.
“When you say ”looting", the culprit is revealed.
That is why words are not innocent.
The language describing the economy today is often more like a lullaby than a fire report.
It makes you sleepy. It calms you. It doesn't make you question.
But there is a fire outside. And some people are still describing the smoke as “weather change”.
Look around you:
The employee works harder but earns less.
Producers produce more but get a smaller share.
Despite this, someone is constantly growing, constantly winning.
Is this a coincidence?
Or is it a well-designed direction?
The economy is sometimes like a river.
In the natural course of things, everyone finds a sip of water.
But if the bed of the river is changed, the water remains the same; it just changes direction.
And one day you realize that the river is now only watering certain gardens.
That is exactly the point:
Is the water low or is the direction wrong?
Of course, not every problem is “looting”.
But it is not innocent to explain everything as “fate”.
Because what you call fate is often a script whose author is hidden.
Perhaps the most dangerous thing today is not poverty;
normalization of poverty.
Convincing people to live with less.
Questioning less, demanding less.
And finally internalizing this sentence:
“Thank God for that.”
But perhaps the real question is this:
What do we have to be grateful for, what do we have to question?
This country may be poor.
But if he is poor, there is a story.
And that story was written.
Question:
Who wrote that story?