Advertisements
Home

Turkish Football Results Might Depend on Political Developments (But Don’t Depend on Lamestream (Western) Media for Real Analyses)

1 Comment

On Saturday 21 October Ankara Mayor Melih Gokcek was over the moon as his team won 3-0 against Kardemir Karabukspor at home. The response was typical, since it was just Osmanlispor’s second victory of the season (and not enough to lift them off of the bottom spot). Osmanlispor—or Ottoman Football Club—is one of the Turkish football league’s “project teams”; part and parcel of the Turkish state’s attempt to create a new hegemony through sport. Currently, however, the team run by the Ankara Mayor’s son Ahmet Gokcek has fallen on hard times. The attempt to create a neo-Ottoman hegemony through sports has stalled due to a crisis among the the ruling elite of the Turkish state; Ankara mayor Melih Gokcek’s resignation was reportedly requested by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as early as 5 October 2017.  Mr. Gokcek, however, has refused to resign and has instead exacerbated a power struggle within the Turkish state. On the surface, the Turkish state presents it as a struggle between pro-Erdogan and pro-Fethullah Gulen forces; a battle between two factions of globalists for the soul of the Turkish nation. As an ardent nationalist, I clearly do not side with either of these factions (and I also root against Osmanlispor). But, in lieu of a detailed analysis of this latest power struggle in Turkish politics, I would rather send a message to globalist media.

 

8480988.jpg

Melih Gokcek Celebrates…For Now. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.posta.com.tr/melih-gokcek-osmanlispor-kardemir-karabukspor-macini-izlerken-goruntulendi-haberi-1344441

 

I am an honest hard-working individual who struggles to get by with the wages provided for me by my home institution. It is my hope that, after getting my PhD, I will be able to become a full-fledged independent writer. My only issue is that I am currently engaged in an unequal fight against . . . globalist media. While mainstream (or “lamestream”) media claims that they are providing “free” and “independent” media, they are doing nothing of the sort. In fact, a recent piece in The Guardian blatantly plagiarized from this blog. Writer Emre Sarigul’s 12 October 2017 piece follows the same team, Altinordu, I wrote about in my 14 August 2017 piece. Unfortunately, The Guardian’s Emre Sarigul neglected to cite this blog in his piece. While the Guardian claims to want to make the world a “fairer place”, it is clear that they also give a space to plagiarizing writers on their website. This is unacceptable for any journalistic organization, and all readers would do well to see The Guardian’s hypocrisy. Their website claims:

 

We want to make the world a better, fairer place. We want to keep the powerful honest. And we believe that doing so means keeping society informed by producing quality, independent journalism, which discovers and tells readers the truth.

It’s essential for the functioning of democracy. And our unique ownership structure means no one can tell us to censor or drop a story.

 

While The Guardian claims to uphold the lofty goals of preserving “democracy” they also clearly support writers—like Emre Sarigul—who are noted plagiarizers; in fact this is not the first time that Mr. Sarigul has stolen ideas. That such a writer should be supported by The Guardian shows the failure of Western “liberal” media.

 

I will never ask for “crowd-funding” or other money-making gimmicks; I will always write for my audience free of charge. That said, however, it is clear that I cannot continue writing this blog if my ideas are continually stolen without receiving credit. Therefore, I am sorry to announce an indefinite hiatus; I cannot—with good conscience—continue to write for the profit of plagiarizers like Mr. Emre Sarigul. Until globalist—and (lamestream) media like The Guardian apologize, I will be forced to keep my posts to a minimum. I will also encourage readers who value my writing to contact The Guardian and encourage them to re-assess the vetting policies for their writers. Stealing ideas is no different than stealing property; that is why it is called “Intellectual Property”. Stolen ideas produce FAKE NEWS.

Advertisements

The Humor of the ZIraat Turkish Cup First Round Offers Some Relief for the Turkish Football Scene

Leave a comment

22 August 2017 was a rough day for Turkish football fans. Istanbul Basaksehirspor—a team I have written about in the past—was a post away from qualifying for the UEFA Champions League in their tie with Sevilla FC. Meanwhile, the chairman of Atiker Konyaspor—Turkish Super Cup champions—Ahmet San was questioned by prosecutors for having ByLock (an app used by the alleged planners of the 15 July 2016 coup) on his phone. After being questioned by prosecutors, his cellular telephone and computer were confiscated while he himself was released. After being released Mr. San resigned from his post at the head of Konyaspor, but it did little to quell the controversy.

 

1606389_940x531.jpg

Mr. San Has Resigned, But The Controversy Rages On. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.haberturk.com/spor/futbol/haber/1606389-konyaspor-baskani-nin-bylock-sorusturmasinda-ifadesi-alindi

omer-catkic.jpg

Former Goalkeeper Omer Catkic Was Arrested For Possessing the Same App as Mr. San. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.diken.com.tr/darbe-girisimi-macka-ilce-jandarma-komutani-tegmene-gozalti/

 

An MP from the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP), Metin Kulunk, questioned the decision to release Mr. San and asked the rhetorical question “Is there someone protecting this person [Mr San]?”. Indeed, it is a good question since—on the same day—former goalkeeper Omer Catkic was arrested for having the same “Bylock” app on his phone as Mr. San! Mr. Kulunk went on to say that the state needs to get tougher on FETO’s organization in Turkish football and that “football’s intestines must be cleaned”. (Here FETO refers to the Fethullah Terrorist Organization, a loose group of the followers of Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen who is blamed for masterminding last summer’s failed coup attempt). Regardless of whether or not Mr. San is guilty, the double standard in use here is unmistakable. Since Konyaspor have reached unprecedented heights—experiencing the most successful period in the club’s history—due to investors with ties to “green capital” (businesses connected to the conservative community), it is clear that the Turkish state does not want to alienate too many of their supporters. It will be interesting the follow the fall out from this latest development but, in the meantime, I will share some new from the lighter side of football.

22 August 2017 was also the first round of the Ziraat Turkish cup, the national cup competition that brings together teams from all corners of Turkey. Since the first round is played by teams from provinces that are not represented in the top four (professional) leagues, this is grassroots football at its best. Turkish television showed five of the matches live, and it was a good way for fans to appreciate Turkey’s geographic diversity. Even if fans couldn’t go in person, they could see the different scenery ranging from the Central Anatolian steppe behind MKE Kirikkalespor’s stadium to the majestic peak of Mount Ararat rising behind Igdirspor’s stadium in Turkey’s easternmost province. The Aegean hinterland was represented by the derby between Kutahyaspor and Tavsanli Linyitspor, while the black sea could be seen behind the stand of Sinopspor’s stadium (even if it was blocked by one gentleman’s head in the broadcast).

Twitter users laughed at the small idiosyncrasies of small town football—like the post which blocked the view of television cameras in Sinop’s stadium, the weight of some of the amateur players, or the policeman who wandered onto the pitch seemingly oblivious to the match being played. As one Twitter user said, “if there is a better sports organization than this one, please tell us”. In response to the poor policeman’s embarrassing gaffe, an editor of an online news aggregator penned the headline “I cannot watch a match in another country!”. While the football may not have been great, these small moments from the first round of the Ziraat Turkish Cup gave Turkish fans something to laugh about and that is something to be celebrated during these troubling times. Football can unite just as it can divide, and in this case the Ziraat Turkish Cup allows fans to appreciate all parts of Turkish life regardless of what region of Turkey they may live in. I share with you some of the best moments from the first round and congratulate all the teams that have moved onto the second round!

 

Screen Shot 2017-08-22 at 10.37.35 PM.png

Clearly, Sinopspor’s Stadium Is Not Made For Televised Matches. Image Courtesy Of: https://twitter.com/search?q=bhdrizgec&src=typd

 

Screen Shot 2017-08-22 at 10.38.53 PM.png

The Gentleman Is Not Only Blocking the View of the Field, But Also Of the Black Sea! No, There Might Not Be a Better Sports Organization Than This One. Image Courtesy Of: https://twitter.com/mossmeister/status/899984776882532353

 

Screen Shot 2017-08-22 at 10.39.20 PM.png

The Footballers In the Lower Leagues Are…Not the Fittest. Image Courtesy Of: https://twitter.com/KocumKosecki/status/899982792439758848

 

20170822_182107.jpg

The Snowcapped Summit of Mount Ararat Rises Behind the Stands of Igdirspor’s Stadium in Turkey’s Easternmost Province. Image Courtesy Of the Author (From ASpor Channel).

 

2017-08-23 22.24.02#1.jpg

The Plains of Central Anatolia Behind the Stands of MKE Kirikkalespor’s Stadium. Image Courtesy Of the Author (From ASpor Channel).

 

2017-08-23 22.21.07.jpg

It Feels Like Your’e In the Stadium! As Fans Lean Over In the Stands, They Block the Cameras During the Kutahya Derby. Image Courtesy Of the Author (From ASpor Channel).

Turkish Super Cup Fiasco Shows the Deepening of a New Hegemony in Turkish Football

1 Comment

460192.jpg

New Season, Same Old Story. Image Courtesy Of: http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/514890/Sports/Brawl

 

The Turkish Super Cup contested between Besiktas and Konyaspor on 6 August 2017 descended into violence between rival groups of fans (for video, please click here), showing that–once again–the E-ticketing system (Passolig) has done little to curb stadium violence. Instead, the social divisions that the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has encouraged over the course of its fifteen year rule spilled onto the pitch. Euronews (from Reuters) reported:

 

Supporters of Atiker Konyaspor, the main team from Turkey’s central Anatolian province of Konya, chanted slogans accusing Besiktas and its fans of links to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has waged a three-decade insurgency against the state. Fans of Besiktas, an Istanbul side whose supporters include a vocal leftist element, responded with a song popular among secular Turks, aimed at the rival fans from Turkey’s conservative heartland. The two groups rushed onto the field and fought after the final whistle.

 

That Besiktas’s fans should be accused of being terrorists is absurd, but so is the conservative fans’ revulsion to Besiktas’s fans singing the Izmir Marsi seeing as how it is…a nationalist song (for video, please click here). Is not Konya part of Turkey? Apparently, the divisions sown by the AKP run deep.

Yet, for all of the failures of the Passolig system to prevent violence, one thing it did succeed in was uncovering “undesirable” fans—those fans who have political messages. Arrest warrants were issued for seventeen fans for opening a banner “in support of two educators [academic Nuriye Gülmen and primary school teacher Semih Özakça] who have been on hunger strikes for over 150 days”. According to the authorities these two are members of the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front (DHKP-C), an outlawed leftist group in Turkey. How the banner ended up in the stadium is a mystery. Another mystery is how a switchblade knife, of all things, not only got into the stadium but got onto the field of play.

 

nuriye-semih.jpg

Somehow, a Bad Banner Got Into The Stadium . . . Image Courtesy Of: http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/siyaset/797587/Basaksehir_macinda__Baskomutan_Erdogan_a_izin_var__Super_Kupa_da__Mustafa_Kemal_Pasa__disarida.html

 

manset-fotografi-76.jpg

Along With a Switchblade Knife! Image Courtesy of: http://skor.sozcu.com.tr/2017/08/06/besiktas-konyaspor-macinda-gergin-anlar-taraftar-sahaya-atladi-ve-649731/

 

Despite “tough” security measures (including the presence of 1200 police officers and 1100 private security guards), scores of violent fans entered the stadium and brawled, causing large amounts of damage to the brand new Yeni 19 Mayis Stadium.

 

samsunstatmanset.jpg

The Aftermath of Senseless Violence. Image Courtesy Of: http://skor.sozcu.com.tr/2017/08/07/samsun-polisi-super-kupa-sonrasi-olaylarla-ilgili-statta-400-guvenlik-kamerasini-inceliyor-649946/

 

Despite what seems to have been complete chaos, it is amusing that there was one thing that was not allowed in the stadium: A banner reading Yasa Mustafa Kemal Pasa Yasa (Long Live Mustafa Kemal Pasa), supporting the founding father of the Turkish Republic Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Although this is absurd—and very surprising, considering what was allowed inside the stadium—it is part of the consolidation of a new hegemony in Turkish society, one that aims to roll back the traditions of the secular Turkish state both politically and—more importantly—culturally; this is why sports has become such a battle ground in the culture wars.

 

manset-fotografi-65.jpg

Apparently, This Was One Of the Few Items That Was Successfully Kept Out Of the Stadium. Image Courtesy Of: http://skor.sozcu.com.tr/2017/08/06/mustafa-kemal-pasa-pankarti-stada-alinmadi-iddiasi-649686/

 

Fikret Orman, President of the Besiktas club, defended the authorities decision to not allow the pro-Ataturk banner, saying “Stada gelen insanlar, siyasi slogan atmaya değil, yıldızları izlemeye geliyor. Siyaset yapmak isteyen, partilere gidebilir (People come to the stadium not to yell political slogans but to watch the stars. Those who want to do politics can go to the [political] parties),” but he did not acknowledge the absurdity of allowing a knife—and not a banner—into a stadium. After all, is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as the founding father of the Turkish Republic, not beyond politics for those who believe in Turkish civic (I remind you, not ethnic) nationalism? It is not when the matter at hand is cementing a new kind of hegemony. Besiktas, as one of Turkish football’s traditional powers representing the eponymous liberal district of Istanbul, is the antithesis of what their opponents on the night, Konyaspor, represent. Konya is Turkey’s most conservative province, located deep in the country’s Central Anatolian heartland. The team is backed by the “green capital” of Islamic businessmen who have prospered during the past 15 years of AKP rule, and their goal is to challenge the existing status quo in Turkish football.

And they are not alone in mounting this challenge, as another banner controversy will show. Istanbul’s Basaksehirspor (An invented team I wrote about in passing when I wrote about Gazisehir Gaziantep Football Club) are the long term project of the Turkish state, and this is why they will be playing for a spot in the UEFA Champions League on 16 August 2017. Even foreign commentators have noted Basaksehir’s attempts to challenge Istanbul’s traditional giants. A recent article in the United Arab Emirates’ The National opens with this passage, referring to last week’s Champions League qualifier with Belgian side Club Brugge: “The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, made a point of being at the stadium of the club he supports two weeks back. Erdogan likes to be associated with victory . . .”. Since Basaksehir is the team Mr. Erdogan supports, they did not have any problem getting a banner reading “Baskomutan (Commander in Chief)” alongside Mr. Erdogan’s portrait into the stadium. The term historically refers to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, but this re-writing of history is typical of a changing Turkey.

 

new.jpg

A Kafkaesque Situation: Supporting the Current Leader of Turkey In the Stadium Is Allowed, Yet Supporting the Founder of Turkey In the Stadium Is Not Allowed. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/siyaset/797587/Basaksehir_macinda__Baskomutan_Erdogan_a_izin_var__Super_Kupa_da__Mustafa_Kemal_Pasa__disarida.html

 

And now Basaksehirspor will face Sevilla in a bid to further their challenge to Turkish football’s traditional powers. Even the team’s Tweets reflect the crude nature of Turkey’s new ruling class. After besting Club Brugge in the previous round of Champions League qualifiers, the team asked Sevilla “Don’t you want to win the Europa League once again Sevilla FC?” [Author’s Note: The team that loses the final qualifying round tie for the Champions League earns a spot in UEFA’s second tier competition, the Europa League]. Sevilla FC responded to Basaksehir’s jab brilliantly with “Thanks, but we have a lot of them …. Better the first one for you”. For a team with minimal European experience (eight matches in total), Basaksehir’s gall can only be classified as classless but that is sadly the manner of behavior that has become de rigeur in Turkey these days (please recall a post I wrote criticizing Turkish Airlines’ claim that their airport lounge in Istanbul is bigger than some airports).

 

5993c8192269a2313cbd4674.jpeg

5993c8592269a2313cbd4676.jpeg

An Interesting Exchange Between Official Twitter Accounts. Images Courtesy Of: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/sporarena/basaksehir-ve-sevilla-sosyal-medyada-atisti-40551429

 

Since a member of the AKP claimed a few weeks ago that “a new state had already been formed” in the wake of last summer’s failed coup, it has become clear that there is a real attempt to consolidate the gains of the last 15 years ahead of President Erdogan’s power-grab election in 2019, especially given the large scale dissatisfaction with AKP rule that surfaced during the April 2017 referendum. This attempt at hegemonic consolidation manifests itself in all facets of Turkish society, and sports is–as always–no exception.

 

Turkish-Flag-Waving-Over-Map-of-Turkey-1024x467.jpg

Image Courtesy Of: http://www.mytripolog.com/2011/07/largest-most-detailed-map-and-flag-of-turkey/

 

 

Globalization as Imperialism with a Kinder Face: The Case of the Sports World

2 Comments

After discussing the recent 2017 IAAF World Track and Field Championships held in London with a friend, I was struck just how clearly the sports world shows that globalization is imperialism with a friendlier face. Just as Michel Foucault argues in Discipline and Punish, changing forms of punishment—from violent torture to confinement in modern prison systems—made punishment less barbaric while simultaneously further legitimizing it, globalization makes imperialism more palatable to the “modern” mind. Exploitation of the global south by the global north, and poorer countries by richer countries, continues unabated in the globalist world.

Reviewer David J. Rothman notes that, for Foucault, systems like schools, factories, hospitals, and prisons:

 

expanded the scope of discipline and legitimized it. It turned the individual into a “case,” which simultaneously helped to explain his actions and to control them. The very concept of the individual as a case represented a “thaw” that liberated scientific knowledge (to think of the patient as a case was the beginning of medical innovation), and at the same time expanded institutional means of control (for example, the right of the hospital to confine the mentally ill). Thus, a case approach “at one and the same time constitutes an object for a branch of knowledge and a hold for a branch of power.”

In the instance of the prison, this case orientation encouraged the expansion of knowledge in such disciplines as criminology, psychology and eventually psychiatry. Concomitantly, it legitimized incarceration in the name of treatment. Since the institution could cure, it was proper to confine.

 

With the advent of modern prison systems punishment was refined and, in the process, became more pervasive. This is no different than the evolution of international power structures from those represented by imperialism and colonialism in the past and those created by globalization in the present.

Emin Colasan, a Turkish columnist, wrote an article on 12 August 2017 regarding “Devsirme” Turkish athletes. The term itself is from Ottoman history, once used to refer to the Janissary Corps, but now used to refer to naturalized foreigners, particularly in sports. Mr. Colasan notes that Turkey’s two medalists in the recent IAAF Track and Field Championships were not in fact Turkish at all: Cuban Yasmani Copello won a silver medal in the 400 meter hurdles while Azeri Ramil Guliev won gold in an upset victory in the 200 meter event. While this is of course an unbelievable achievement for these two athletes (as a former track and field athlete myself, I know the hard work the sport requires), it would be wrong to characterize it as an achievement for Turkish sport itself since these athletes were not products of Turkish sporting infrastructure. Mr. Colasan provides another example in the Turkish National Women’s Basketball Team, where Americans like Quanitra Hollingsworth represent Turkey in international competitions. For Hollingsworth it is a “business arrangement” (https://aroundthehorns.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/quanitra-hollingsworth-turkish-citizen-olympian/ that will ultimately help her career—but it won’t help the careers of native Turkish basketball players who may hope to one day represent their country.

 

1238836_Britain_Athletics_World165-e1502412954273.jpg

quanitra-hollingsworth-20140802-2.jpg

The Internationalization of Turkish Sport, from Ramil Guliev to Quanitra Hollingsworth. While this is of course a positive development for these two athletes in particular, it might not be as positive for native athletes. Images Courtesy of: http://www.pressherald.com/2017/08/10/world-track-championships-surprise-victory-for-turkeys-ramil-guliyev-in-200/ (TOP) and https://alchetron.com/Quanitra-Hollingsworth-620347-W (BOTTOM).

 

The importing of foreign sports stars is something that Qatar, among other oil rich gulf states, is notorious for. Deutsche Welle, writing about Qatar’s 2015 success in handball, notes that only four of Qatari team was actually from Qatar. The team made up of players from Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia, France, Spain, and Cuba “had been enticed to play for the Gulf state thanks to six figure winning bonuses. They were also guaranteed a life long pension, if the team reached the semifinals”. Deutsche Welle offers a thinly veiled defense of Qatari actions, calling it true globalization and further justifying it by comparing it to the actions of major European football clubs:

 

18227839_401.jpg

The Newest Qatari, Danijel Saric (Formerly of Serbia). Image Courtesy Of: http://www.dw.com/en/qatar-buying-their-way-to-sporting-success/a-18233576

 

Qatar’s approach in this instance is no different to the way that big European football clubs operate. They search for talent worldwide, then sign them up and then train them. It’s just that Qatar’s sheikhs are doing it at the national team level, not for a club.

Some people might find it immoral, and maybe it is. But in high-level professional sport, where lots of money is involved and success is the most important currency, the approach is pretty common.

 

Again, it is the importance of “money” that drives Qatar’s—and Turkey’s—desire to obtain foreign athletes. Unfortunately, it is the kind of short-sighted policy that defines the actions of globalist leaders the world over. Rather than develop their own sporting cultures and infrastructure countries are trying to buy success; rather than develop indigenous technologies and businesses countries would rather privatize existing state run industries and import from multinational corporations. Such policies do little to encourage long term home-grown economic growth and the profits stream out of developing countries to the home-countries of multinational corporations based in the developed world.

What Deutsche Welle also misses—by comparing Qatar’s actions to those of “the big European football clubs”—is that the actions of those clubs is also imperialism disguised as globalization; footballers are imported to Europe from poorer countries in Latin America and Africa in a modern day exploitation of the global South in sports. The results have not been great for Latin American clubs, as a courser look at the history of the FIFA World Club Championship (later FIFA Club World Cup) shows: While the competition was roughly equal in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s (South America won 6 championships to Europe’s 4 from 1960-69 while Europe won 7 championships to South America’s 11 from 1970 to 1989) the advent of globalization changed the balance from 1990 onward. From 1990 to 2004 Europe won 10 championships to South America’s 5 and after the start of the FIFA Club World Cup in 2004 South America has won just 3 competitions to Europe’s 9 (the last time a South American participant won was 2012). Because of the globalization of sport poorer countries have no incentive to develop sporting infrastructure. South American and African clubs will sell young players off (the raw materials of world football) at cheap prices for them to be refined at major European clubs; countries like Turkey and Qatar will just buy sporting success in lieu of developing their sporting infrastructure. In this respect human beings become commodified; both processes are similarly short cited and create a vicious cycle in terms of both sporting and economic development.

Perhaps the most obvious manifestation of imperialism and sports can be found by looking at the make up of international football teams. The French national side of the 1980s (immediately following decolonization) was mainly a European team. The team that represented France at the 2016 European Championships was mainly an African team, the results of years of French Colonialism. Belgium is no different, and King Leopold’s horrific actions in the Belgian Congo will not be erased by Vincent Kompany’s success on the pitch representing Belgium any more than French domination of Algeria was erased by Zinedine Zidane’s brilliance. That European countries still reap the benefits of colonialism is shocking; that European neo-colonialism—under the guise of sporting globalization—continues unabated is disappointing.

 

la-generation-des-platini-fernandez-et-autres-tigana-a-remporte-l-euro-pour-la-premiere-fois-en-1984-photo-archives-afp-1465311379.jpg

The French Side at the 1984 European Championships. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.lalsace.fr/sport/2016/06/07/france-des-entrees-en-lice-qui-donnent-le-ton

 

france_win-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpg

The French Side at the 2016 European Championships. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/06/10/euro-2016-on-friday-kick-off-times-tv-channels-and-team-news-ahe/

 

As I have argued, the current globalized world is one that puts a kinder face on imperialism, masking some real issues. While it is certainly a positive development that Belgium has started to recognize the footballing success of African footballers specifically, I can’t help but wonder what it would be like if these players could represent Congo instead of Belgium. If African football is to develop—and an African team is to win a World Cup—the best players cannot be continually outsourced to Europe. Such policies serve to continually retard the growth of African football.

 

s-de38ffd50aa330f12612aa0a48801ef935e05a58.jpg

Image Courtesy Of: https://onedio.com/haber/iyi-birey-iyi-vatandas-ve-iyi-futbolcu-yetistirmek-icin-adanan-fikirlerin-eseri-altinordu-615891

 

I hope that more clubs take a suggestion from the Turkish second division club Altinordu, whose motto is “A good person, a good citizen, a good footballer”. Founded in Izmir in 1923, Altinordu deliberately took a Turkish name (literally “Golden Horde”) so as to represent Turkish nationalism following the founding of the Turkish Republic in the same year. As the team’s motto shows, there is a real nationalist undercurrent that puts citizenship and individual character before being a footballer. Most importantly, the team’s policies are actually positive for Turkish football. The club will not sign non-Turkish players, and puts an emphasis on nurturing homegrown talent instead. The team narrowly missed promotion to the Turkish Super League last season with a roster whose average age was less than 23. The team’s chairman Mehmet Seyit Ozkan made headlines last year when he said “Even if [Argentine star Lionel] Messi wants to play for Altinordu for free, I would definitely reject him”. Mr. Ozkan underlined “I believe in our young Turkish players. I’m giving chances to them”. This kind of policy can only help Turkish football in the long run since one contributing factor in Turkish football’s recent decline has been the rising number of non-Turkish players; clubs have no incentive to develop home grown talent because a 2015 rule change allowed Turkish teams to field an XI made up entirely of foreign players. In 2016 the Turkish Super League was made up of 47.5 percent non-Turkish players; it is a similar situation to what is seen in the English Premier League (and we all know what year it was the last time England won a major football tournament (!).

Whether football fan or not, we should all be concerned about the negative effects of globalization and be prepared to discuss different perspectives. Even if it seems to be more humane, the current system is reminiscent of the bold faced imperialism and colonialism of the past, benefitting the global north at the expense of the global south. In order to encourage long term growth worldwide—both culturally and economically—it is prudent to recognize that globalization is far from an unequivocally positive trend.

 

Does-globalization-cause-wealth-inequality.jpg

Globalization Has In Fact Exacerbated Inequality In The West. Image Courtesy Of: http://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/economic-globalization/

 

images_invasion.jpg

An Amusing Picture Describes the Thin Line Separating Cultural Imperialism from Globalization. Image Courtesy Of: http://f10cmc100-2.blogspot.com.tr/2010/10/globalization-versus-cultural.html

The Turkish Football League Welcomes Yet Another Invented Team for the 2017-2018 Season: Gazisehir Gaziantep Futbol Kulubu

2 Comments

As readers know, football in Turkey is a political sport. This politicization of sport is most often blatant in the naming (and re-naming) of football stadia, but recently it has become increasingly apparent in the re-naming of football clubs. In a bid to invent tradition in the Hobsbawmian sense, new football clubs have been “invented” in the last decade challenging the existing hegemony in Turkish football, represented by clubs whose history stretches back to the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923. The latest example is the case of Gaziantep Buyuksehir Belediyespor, the Gaziantep municipality’s club playing in the second tier, which as of 15 June 2017 has become Gazisehir Gaziantep Futbol Kulubu. That this should come at the same time that Gaziantep province’s most famous team, Gaziantepspor, was relegated from the Turkish Super League for the first time since 1990, should come as no surprise. After all, this is a challenge to the cultural (and sporting) hegemony of Gaziantepspor (I have written before about government efforts to take land from Gaziantepspor). That the new team’s badge should so resemble Gaziantepspor’s is no coincidence; it is part of the one dimensional thought I have written about that discourages new ideas is  inherent in late stage capitalism. That the new team’s name—“Gazisehir Gaziantep”—should so closely resemble Istanbul’s Basaksehirspor is also no coincidence; both are invented traditions.

 

gaziantep-buyuksehir-belediyespor-un-adi-ve-logosu-degisti-304226-5.jpg

The New Logo, eerily similar to Gaziantepspor’s current logo. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.birgun.net/haber-detay/gaziantep-buyuksehir-belediyespor-un-adi-ve-logosu-degisti-164917.html

 

39655_gaziantepspor-mac.jpg

Gaziantepspor’s Current Logo. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.iha.com.tr/haber-gaziantepspor-adanaspor-maci-saat-kacta-hangi-kanalda-624568/

 

2017-2018 Champions League qualifiers (and last year’s runners up in the Turkish league) Istanbul Basaksehirspor represent the most blatant challenge to the existing cultural hegemony in football because the club came to prominence following the decline of Istanbulspor, a team formed in 1926 by students from Istanbul high school, which had been a first division stalwart for years. That it was run by Cem Uzan—a controversial businessman who once ran for political office—meant a run of success for the club before it was repossessed by the government after falling into financial ruin following the departure of the Uzan family. With Istanbul’s “fourth” team—after the “big three” of Besiktas, Fenerbahce, and Galatasaray—out of the picture, it was only logical that a challenge would be mounted; it manifested itself in the form of Istanbul Basaksehirspor, a team born out of the municipality’s Istanbul Buyuksehir Belediyespor which carries state backing in many forms.

This process was repeated in other cities with other teams. In Ankara it was Ankaragucu, a team formed in 1910, which fell into decline following the installation of Ankara mayor Melih Gokcek’s son as chairman. At that point Ankara Buyuksehir Belediyespor (again the municipality’s team) rose to prominence and became Ankaraspor; now it is known as Osmanlispor Futbol Kulubu (Ottoman Football Club), a thinly veiled piece of neo-Ottoman propaganda. Of course, as Ankaragucu has seen a resurgence (returning to the second tier for the upcoming 2017-2018 season), Justice and Development Party Mayor Melih Gokcek has pledged his support for Ankaragucu. Somethings, it seems, will never change, and politicians’ involvement in Turkish football is one of those things.

The re-naming—and transformation of clubs from state-run municipality sponsored entities into private entities—allows business opportunities for new owners and encourages crony capitalism. In this case it is Adil Sani Konukoglu who is the new chairman of Gazisehir Gaziantep Futbol Kulubu; according to Bloomberg Mr. Konukoglu is the head of Gaziantep-based Sanko holding. While Mr. Konukoglu pledged his full support for the team according to a piece on the Gaziantep metropolitan municipality’s website, it is clear that the club will have to deal with some baggage from their previous incarnation: the old Gaziantep Buyuksehir Belediyespor was accused of match-fixing in a game last season by Sanliurfaspor on 5 July 2017. On 13 July 2017 the Turkish Football Federation announced that it would look into the allegations.

These kinds of developments are typical in the climate of what some scholars have termed Turkey’s “authoritarian neoliberalism”. This kind of thought process permeates Turkish politics; it is not a conservative ideology at all. Rather it is a politics that privileges business interests above all while also cementing a new cultural hegemony. In such a climate it is tradition which is the first to fall by the way-side and the world of football is no exception.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Attempts to Re-Brand Himself as a Nationalist by Renaming Football Stadiums

Leave a comment

Turkey’s controversial President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a savvy political leader to say the least. He is also very intelligent, and his latest move is another attempt to survive amidst the ongoing global turmoil. Mr. Erdogan sees the rising tide of populist nationalism (most prominently exemplified by June 2016’s “Brexit” and the election of U.S. President Donald Trump in November 2016) and is looking to exploit it by re-branding himself as a populist nationalist leader. His latest tactic focuses on football stadiums. On 29 May 2017 Mr. Erdogan announced that he was “going to remove the word ‘arena’ from stadiums”, deeming the word “un-Turkish”. According to The Telegraph, Mr. Erdogan asked a rhetorical question: “What does arena mean? We don’t have such a thing in our language,’ Mr Erdogan added, urging people to examine the ‘meaning and interpretation’ of arenas saying the word was ‘neither polite nor elegant’ “.

 

1436986263848.jpg

Ataturk’s Language Reform. Image Courtesy of: http://www.nationalturk.com/en/turkey-83th-anniversary-of-turkish-language-reform-to-be-celebrated-14675/

 

Of course, such a move is not new or unprecedented in Turkish history. Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, pursued a language revolution which brought the Latin alphabet to Turkey by eliminating the Perso-Arabic script of Ottoman Turkish; it was one of the cornerstones of Ataturk’s revolution designed to “Westernize” Turkey. More recently, as scholar Banu Eligur points out in her illuminating book on Political Islam in Turkey, the military did the same after the 1980 intervention when “the state-owned television issued a long list of words that were banned from use over the network” (Eligur, 2010: 117). According to the author, “the state was not simply expected to promote a conservative understanding of national culture, but to discourage—or, as one document puts it—to ‘extinguish’ modernist movements in literature and the arts” (Eligur, 2010: 117). This is the same kind of consolidation that Mr. Erdogan is looking to achieve with his attempt to ban the word “arena” from use in Turkish stadiums; it is also an attempt for Mr. Erdogan to equate himself with Ataturk.

 

 

turk-telekom-arena.jpg

og-image.jpg

According to Mr. Erdogan’s Decree, the Names of Galatasaray’s Turk Telekom Arena (Top) and Besiktas’ Vodafone Arena (Bottom) Will Have to Change. Images Courtesy of https://www.tripadvisor.co.za/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g293974-d2329797-i222044743-Turk_Telekom_Arena-Istanbul.html (Top) and http://www.vodafonearena.com.tr/_assets/images/layout/og-image.jpg (Bottom).

 

It would behoove observers to realize that Mr. Erdogan’s purported goal is a façade. After breaking with Fethullah Gulen—the reclusive Islamic cleric blamed for the 15 July 2016 coup attempt—Erdogan is looking to become more of a nationalist and less of a globalist (as Mr. Gulen is). Mr. Gulen, who is undoubtedly an Islamist, embraces a globalist vision without countries; it is a vision where an Islamic umma (believers) is united as Muslims and not Turks, Egyptians, Iranians, etc. State media in the United States decided to publish a statement by Mr. Gulen (himself a traitor to his country) on 15 May 2017, in which he states his position clearly. He argues that:

 

school curriculum that emphasizes democratic and pluralistic values and encourages critical thinking must be developed. Every student must learn the importance of balancing state powers with individual rights, the separation of powers, judicial independence and press freedom, and the dangers of extreme nationalism, politicization of religion and veneration of the state or any leader. [Emphasis added].

 

It is remarkable how closely Mr. Gulen’s emphasis on “pluralistic values” and “critical thinking” resembles the indoctrination strategies of many universities in the United States, where “critical thinking” is a code-word for anything but; in reality it means “think like your professors think”. Mr. Gulen’s decrying of nationalism and the “veneration of the state or any leader” fits in with the same anti-nationalist rhetoric of globalists around the world. That American state media should publish the words of a shady Islamic cleric is, also, sadly not surprising. The Washington Post turned against Mr. Erdogan since his split with Mr. Gulen; after Mr. Erdogan’s bodyguards thuggishly attacked anti Erdogan protesters in May of 2017 the newspaper called Mr. Erdogan’s security detail “thugs” and “goons”. That the newspaper is finally outing Mr. Erdogan for his authoritarianism does not absolve them of their guilt for supporting Mr. Erdogan (while he still worked with Mr. Gulen) during the Gezi Park protests of 2013 when Max Fisher cited a poll which said Mr. Erdogan had “high approval ratings” despite the protests. The false nature of the claims—designed to discredit the anti-government protestors—is made clear by the newspaper’s own admission of misrepresenting the facts. A disclaimer in the story reads:

 

Correction: This post originally indicated that the Pew poll had been taken after protests began. In fact, it was taken in March, before protests started. 

 

It seems “fake news”, or at least deliberate misrepresentation of the facts by state media in the U.S., was alive and well long before the Donald Trump era in a bid to prop up Mr. Erdogan. Now, having lost his globalist ally, state media is changing their tune just as Mr. Erdogan is. It is important to realize that Mr. Erdogan is merely adapting to a changing world without truly changing at all.

The fact that Galatasaray was the first team to change the name of their stadium in response to Mr. Erdogan’s comments is not surprising (the team has been close to Mr. Erdogan), but it is indicative of the falseness inherent in Mr. Erdogan’s comments. Sports Illustrated reported that Galatasaray changed their stadium’s name from “Turk Telekom Arena” to “Turk Telekom Stadium”. But…what is a “stadium”? Is “stadium” not a non-Turkish word? Of course it is, and it underlines the ridiculousness of the call to erase “Arena” from Turkish stadiums; it is more ridiculous when one realizes that most of the new stadiums built in Turkey under the AKP regime have been named…arenas. Mr. Erdogan is trying to re-brand himself by separating himself from the era of Gulenist influence but it will not be that easy since Mr. Erdogan is not a nationalist, and has never been one.

As Banu Eligur notes, Mr. Erdogan said in January 1995 that “the 21st century will be an era in which systems that are based on Islam will come to power in the world” (Eligur, 2010: 162). Islamism is, clearly, not compatible with nationalism, itself a secular ideology. Thus, it is unlikely that Mr. Erdogan’s about face is credible. It shouldn’t be surprising, since his own reformist wing within the Turkish Islamist movement founded the Justice and Development Party (AKP); it was a wing that, according to Eligur, “placed a greater value on electoral victory, which required a significant expansion of the party’s constituency base, than on the religious purity of the membership” (Eligur, 2010: 198). In other words, Mr. Erdogan was never really a Islamist (in terms of faithfulness to the religion of Islam), rather he was looking for votes (and by extension) power. Thus his new-found populist nationalism is similarly false.

To understand this, Banu Eligur’s work is again useful. Eligur ends her book by pointing out that

 

Islamism, unlike Turkish nationalism, does not accept the notion of a Turkish identity. Turkish nationalism, as a secular ideology, seeks to protect both the secular and the unitary character of the state. The Islamist movement is likely to have a hard time competing against the very foundations of the secular-democratic Turkish Republic: the Turkish nationalism of Ataturk. However, Islamist entrepreneurs may opt once again, as they have after each threat to the survival of their movement, to reframe their message to the Turkish people so as to neutralize the nationalist challenge and secure the power and appeal of the Islamist movement in Turkey. (Eligur, 2010: 283)

 

This is the essential point that observers of Turkey should keep in mind at this critical juncture in history. Mr. Erdogan’s move regarding stadium naming policy is—to borrow Eligur’s term—a “reframing” of the message. Mr. Erdogan, being the observant leader that he is, senses the rising tide of populist nationalism in the world and is looking to reframe himself in that context. None should be fooled, however, as to Mr. Erdogan’s intentions. He is still a politician who—in the context of extreme capitalism—is looking to keep his hold on power in Turkey using whatever methods necessary. Due to the global context, for the foreseeable future it seems as if Mr. Erdogan will look to exploit Turkish nationalism as a means to keep his hold on power and the Turkish state.

 

Flag-map_of_Turkey.svg.png

Banal Nationalism. Image Courtesy Of: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag-map_of_Turkey.svg

A Footballer’s Response to Turkey’s Referendum Shows The Failure of Europe’s “Multiculturalism” in the Context of Extreme Capitalism

Leave a comment

After the Turkish referendum of 16 April 2017, the plaudits came in from some unexpected sources including U.S. President Donald Trump and dual Turkish/French national footballer Mevlut Erdinc (Erding in Europe). What is notable about both responses is that they show the extent to which “democracy” and “freedom” are relative terms; in the modern world they have become mere words far detached from their actual meanings. I will first discuss Mr. Trump’s response before focusing on Mr. Erdinc’s, in order to show how both responses represent the flaws inherent in what we—in the West—have come to believe “democracy” means.

Following the “YES” victory in the Turkish referendum that paves the way for a constitutional change, U.S. President Donald Trump called Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (the fact that the President is a ceremonial position in Turkish politics, and is technically impartial, was apparently lost on the U.S. leadership). Perhaps recognizing this fact, the U.S. government later backtracked and claimed that the call was not so much congratulatory, rather that it “focused on terrorism”. Regardless of what was discussed, it is likely that the U.S. was truly just “checking in”, so to speak, so as to ensure that Turkey was still on board with Mr. Trump’s war on ISIS/ISIL in the Middle East. While the call may have been a poor decision—and CNN certainly thought it was —Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s article makes a useful point:

Erdogan will never do away altogether with democracy: It’s not in his interest. Keeping a semblance of democratic norms can be useful to the ruler; it allows him to refute any charges that he’s a dictator.

 Unfortunately for Ben-Ghiat, whose point here is well taken and one I will expand on further, she (like so much of State media in the United States) loses credibility by following up with this statement:

Trump’s public support for Erdogan is a serious thing: It’s another nail in the coffin of America’s prestige in the world as a beacon (no matter if flawed) of freedom. Trump’s seeking out the favor of Erdogan, like his shameless courting of Putin, should startle Republicans out of their favorite recurring fantasy: that Trump will go “mainstream” and support democratic norms in America and elsewhere.

She—like many in U.S. mainstream media—misses the point that “democracy”, whether espoused by the U.S. or Europe, is on the ropes (please see the BBC for a detailed explanation of Democracy’s recent failures). Indeed, State media’s Washington Post similarly embarrassed themselves with this line in Daniel W. Drezner’s column:

If it were president Hillary Clinton or president Barack Obama at this moment in time, they probably would have publicly voiced qualms about the referendum while still maintaining a prickly partnership with Ankara.

 Mr. Drezner attempts to qualify his position with this statement:

Public disquiet and behind-the-scenes pressure on key illiberal allies is an imperfect policy position. It is still a heck of a lot more consistent with America’s core interests than congratulating allies on moving in an illiberal direction. In congratulating Erdogan, Trump did the latter.

What Mr. Drezner essentially advocates is lying to the American people: in his mind Mr. Obama (or Ms. Clinton) would have publically squawked while privately continuing their work with Turkey. How this is preferable to a leader actually coming out and openly showing (through rhetoric) the problems with America’s pursuit of “democracy” is beyond me; I might not agree with Mr. Trump’s decision to “congratulate” Mr. Erdogan (if that is even what he actually did) but I still prefer it to the fakery that Mr. Drezner seemingly prefers. In order to understand just how deeply the failures of democracy run, however, we need to move beyond Mr. Trump and the United States. After all, the United States does not seem to be as bad as Europe when it comes to contradicting democracy.

Another public figure who praised Mr. Erdogan in the wake of the referendum is Turkish national team footballer Mevlut Erdinc, himself a dual Turkish and French national. In a Tweet Mr. Erdinc says “Before being a footballer I am a normal person; I have a position I have thoughts I am free”. Beside this caption Mr. Erdinc posted a picture of Mr. Erdogan, seated, with the word “Baskan” (Turkish for “President”) written in the font the Godfather movies made famous. That this picture essentially equates the Turkish leader (himself known for corruption) with a mafia leader is a fascinating topic on its own, yet it also goes much deeper—into the issues of mainstream European politics.

 

eotoaoo.jpg

A Picture Can Tell a Thousand Words. Image Courtesy Of: http://amkspor.sozcu.com.tr/2017/04/17/referandum-sonrasinda-mevlut-erdincten-erdogan-icin-baskan-paylasimi-614120/

 

That a sports figure would openly express support for Mr. Erdogan’s government—despite the government’s failure in the field of sport (which has seen a rise in doping related penalties and a 70 percent decrease in attendance for football matches in the top two tiers since the beginning of the Passolig system) —is notable in and of itself. Yet this support is understandable when we recognize that Mr. Erdinc is a “European” Turk, by virtue of his French citizenship.

“European” is in quotation marks because Europe has, in recent years, strayed from what it was known for: free thought and democratic values. The Gatestone Institute wrote a recent piece entitled “Europe: Making itself into the new Afghanistan?”, which underlines the odd way that catering to the sentiments of the Muslim minority actually makes Europe less democratic in the long run; artists self-censor their art while museum directors cancel exhibitions for fear of offending Muslim sensibilities. Algerian writer Kamel Daoud puts it well:

Those (migrants) who come to seek freedom in France must participate in freedom. Migrants did not come to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia, but in Germany. Why? For security, freedom and prosperity. So they must not come to create a new Afghanistan.

This comment—which I am sure is controversial to some—underlines the limits of cultural pluralism in Europe (something Stephen Steinberg has noted has limits in the United States, much to the consternation of Sociologists who are threatened by the notion that celebrating difference can be problematic and undemocratic). Unfortunately, sometimes the focus on diversity means that the perceived “difference” of others becomes concretized; the social construction becomes real because society over-emphasizes it. Nowhere is this more evident than modern Europe, as results from the Turkish referendum show.

According to NTV, it was European Turks who all but turned the tide in the referendum. While the general result was a win for “YES” by 51.4% to 48.6%, the result among international voters was 59.5% to 40.6% in favor of “YES”. Among these “YES” votes, the highest percentages came from Western European countries: Germany (63% “YES”); Austria (73% “YES”); Belgium (75% “YES”); Denmark (61% “YES”); France (65% “YES”); Holland (71% “YES”); Norway (57% “YES”). Clearly, international votes were crucial in the referendum, and unstamped votes were counted even in the international voting.

 

Screen Shot 2017-04-28 at 2.40.54 AM.png

Images Courtesy Of: http://referandum.ntv.com.tr/#yurt-disi

 

It should be worrying to Europeans that Turks living within the perceived “liberal” climate of Europe chose to vote “YES”, since it shows the distinct failure of Europe’s “liberal” policies. Clearly, the Turks living in the context of Europe’s cultural pluralism did not internalize the “values” of Europe—freedom of expression and freedom of speech (the same values that are under attack in art galleries and museums which silence artists for fear of offending Muslim sensibilities)—rather they voted to increase the power of a president who aims to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of expression in Turkey. In effect these “European” Turks—like Mevlut Erdinc—became more, and not less, conservative despite living in Europe. They effectively doubled down on their ethnic identity—itself tied to Islam—in the wake of European othering under the guise of cultural pluralism.

This is just one example of how “democracy”, as it is known it in the West, can be subverted. As Burak Bekdil of the Gatestone Institute points out, “Turks Vote[d] To Give Away Their Democracy”. Mr. Bekdil points out that the voters chose to support a party that has purged thousands: 

According to Turkish Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu:

  • 47,155 people have been jailed since the coup attempt on July 15;
  • 113,260 people have also been detained;
  • 41,499 people have been released with condition of judicial control and 23,861 people have been released without any condition; 863 other suspects remain at large;
  • 10,732 of those who have been arrested are police officers, while 168 military generals and 7,463 military officers have been jailed as of April 2, 2017;
  • 2,575 judges and prosecutors

 

The fact that “democracy” has supported such undemocratic policies may be astounding, yet it shouldn’t be. Mr. Erdogan, in his bid to ingratiate himself to the “West” in order to continue the inflow of capital in the context of neoliberalism, has celebrated his response to the 15 July 2016 Coup attempt as being in the name of “Democracy”. This obsession with the word—and not the practice—of democracy has manifested itself in many ways: A new “Martyrs and Democracy” museum is opening in Ankara to remember victims of the failed coup of 15 July 2016. and the island of Yassidada—where former Prime Minister Adnan Menderes was hung, among other political figures—has also become “Democracy and Freedom Island”. The AKP even moved to authorize construction on the island (and increased the amount of construction allowed after the referendum), turning the former prison island into a tourist resort, since it is one of the few unspoiled spots of land available for development. These are just small examples of how the ideas of Western liberalism are being used to support decidedly illiberal policies; it is a failure of “the West” to separate “neoliberalism” from “liberalism”.

 

n_57571_1.jpg

The “Original” Yassiada. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/infamous-istanbul-island-home-to-menderes-trial-renamed-democracy-and-freedom-island.aspx?pageID=238&nID=57571&NewsCatID=341

 

12hp12hp12hp12.jpg

Yassiada Now. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.sozcu.com.tr/2017/ekonomi/yassiada-daha-da-beton-olacak-1803736/

 

Screen Shot 2017-04-30 at 12.56.00 AM.png

The Name Change Is Complete on Google Maps. Image Courtesy of Google Maps.

 

Unfortunately, this trend—of putting capital before community—looks set to continue. The European Union has looked to “reset ties with Turkey”, in the eyes of The Wall Street Journal, perhaps seeking a return to the status quo ante. Regardless of what happens, it is clear that the European brand of liberal pluralism has failed. What happens in the future is anyone’s guess, but it would behoove all of us to realize that “democracy” has become just a word, used in certain contexts in order to receive certain returns in political and material terms. In effect, the concept of “democracy” itself has become commodified; it has become something to be bought and sold in intellectual and political circles, like so much else in the age of extreme capitalism.

 

585497394.jpg

Image Courtesy Of: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/turkey-flag-map-with-business-man-shouting-royalty-free-illustration/585516128

 

Older Entries