Penggalan kalimat berikut diambil dari harian Kompas 23 Desember 2006: “Selanjutnya, kekerasan atau violensia bukan hasil logis agresivitas yang kompetitif”. Silahkan hitung berapa banyak kata serapan dari bahasa Inggris dan Belanda yang terkandung dalam kalimat tersebut. Logis, agresivitas, kompetitif adalah kata serapan yang umum dipakai dalam bahasa Indonesia. Tapi Violensia, nah ini baru sekali saya temukan.
Yang akan saya bicarakan bukan banyaknya kata serapan yang digunakan dalam kalimat tersebut (atau seberapa jauh kalimat tersebut bisa dimengerti). Saya setuju dengan pendapat yang menyatakan bahwa bahasa terus berkembang. Tidak ada satu lembaga pun yang punya wewenang untuk menyatakan apa yang boleh dan yang tidak boleh digunakan dalam bahasa Indonesia. Jadi tidak ada salahnya menggunakan kata serapan untuk menggambarkan gejala atau temuan baru yang belum ada padanannya dalam bahasa Indonesia. Semua tergantung kebutuhan saja.
Tapi saya rasa semua juga ada batasnya. Penggunaan kata Violensia tadi misalnya, tidak bisa saya mengerti sama sekali. Bahkan dalam kalimat tersebut ditulis ‘… kekerasan atau violensia’, sehingga jelas sekali padanan kata violensia adalah kekerasan. Mengapa harus menciptakan kata serapan baru? Saya tidak percaya ini karena alasan yang sifatnya praktis. Coba hitung: kekerasan terdiri dari 4 suku kata, violensia terdiri dari 5 suku kata. Pasti lebih mudah menyebut kata ‘kekerasan’ daripada ‘violensia’.
Menjadi tambah mengecewakan karena kata tersebut muncul di harian Kompas. Bukannya menganggap remeh harian yang lain, tapi sebagai harian besar Kompas seharusnya mempunyai penyelia bahasa dengan kemampuan dan jumlah yang cukup sehingga hal seperti ini tidak terjadi. Kenyataannya ini bukan pertama kali Kompas meloloskan kata aneh seperti itu.
Contohnya adalah penggunaan kata ‘selebrasi’, biasanya dalam bagian olahraga khususnya berita sepak bola. Mengapa harus menggunakan kata ‘selebrasi’ bila padanan kata bahasa Indonesianya juga cukup baik dan sudah umum digunakan yaitu ‘perayaan’. Sekali lagi perhatikan, kedua kata tersebut terdiri dari 4 suku kata. Jadi ini juga bukan masalah kepraktisan ataupun penggambaran gejala baru.
Satu kata bentukan lain yang pernah digunakan Kompas adalah ‘menginteli’. Padanan bahasa Indonesianya adalah ‘mematamatai’. Dalam hal ini agak bisa mengerti mengapa yang dipakai adalah kata ‘menginteli’, yaitu karena padanannya dalam bahasa Indonesia cukup panjang. Tapi kata ini sama sekali tidak anggun dan cerdas. Jauh lebih enak menggunakan kata ‘mematamatai’. Kalau dikembalikan ke bahasa Inggris pun seharusnya digunakan kata ‘to spy’ atau turunannya ‘spying’. Kata intel hanya turunan ‘tidak sah’ dari kata serapan ‘intelijen’.
Semua kata padanan tersebut cukup enak didengar dan mudah diucapkan. Jadi, munculnya kata serapan yang tidak perlu tampaknya lebih karena masalah selera. Seperti yang sudah banyak ditulis, ada anggapan bahwa penggunaan bahasa asing memberi kesan cerdas bagi pemakainya. Yang harus dilakukan tampaknya adalah mengikis anggapan tersebut. Harus bisa dibedakan antara mempunyai kemampuan berbahasa asing dan kecerdasan dalam berbahasa Indonesia. Karena pada kenyataannya menyelipkan kata-kata bahasa asing (baik serapan maupun bentuk aslinya) dalam percakapan ataupun tulisan tidak semerta-merta menunjukkan tingkat keterpelajaran pemakainya. Alih-alih ini bisa menimbulkan kebingungan bagi pendengar atau pembaca.
Satu hal lagi, memang tidak mudah untuk mengenalkan padanan kata dalam bahasa Indonesia, terutama untuk hal atau gejala baru. Kata baru seperti tetikus (mouse, untuk komputer), sangkil dan mangkus (effective and efficient), papan kunci (keyboard) bisa dikatakan tidak terlalu berhasil. Tapi sudah mulai banyak juga kata padanan yang dapat diterima di masyarakat, ditilik dari jumlah penggunaannya. Misalnya saja mengunduh (to download), nirlaba (non-profit), cenayang (paranormal), rataan (average) dan lainnya. Media jelas sangat membantu dalam penyebaran kata-kata baru seperti ini.
***
Monday, December 25, 2006
Friday, December 22, 2006
Parenting 101 (Part 4): The Hidden Cost of Cheap Toys
When you have the means, go for the quality. It’s a common belief among parents that since the lil’ uns like to break down their toys and have sort span of attention, don’t bother buy them the expensive ones. True, the inquisitive minds of small children make their toys especially short-lived. But sometimes a better quality toy (still short-lived albeit not so much as a cheaper toy) is worth the money.
Look at this sample [Exhibit 1]. The picture was taken only 18 hours from the time I bought it. A China made toy, it’s supposed to be a Transformer robot and only cost you Rp. 50,000. At first I thought it’s a bargain considering the size and relatively complex mechanism. That should win his interest for a while. But not long after my son started to play with it (with his usual vigor) one of the legs was broken. Apparently the joints were not as sturdy, making them vulnerable under rigorous strain. He cried out of disappointment, and took time for us to calm him down.
Here’s another one [Exhibit 2]. The box says that it’s a transformable car-robot.
Here’s how it looks like in car mode [Exhibit 3].
Again price was the consideration when I purchased this toy. It still can function perfectly, but the problem lies with its design. I run into considerable difficulties explaining the thing for him.
S: What is it dad?
D: It’s a robot
S: Where is the head?
D: This is the head, can’t you see?
S: It’s not a head
D: Here look, these are the eyes. And this is, err… the mouth.
S: It’s not robot. Ugly toy.
And he threw it away, just like that. Judging from the look I guess he is right. Who would recognize this thing as a robot? Only those with extremely imaginative minds can remotely consider this thing as one. You can’t fool little kids with this stupid design.
So the merit of better quality toys to mention a few:
1) Relatively longer life span (instead of 18 hours it can last for, say, 48 hours?)
2) Save you from the trouble explaining the mechanism, function or simply what it is.
There you go, next time don’t be too stingy.
***
Look at this sample [Exhibit 1]. The picture was taken only 18 hours from the time I bought it. A China made toy, it’s supposed to be a Transformer robot and only cost you Rp. 50,000. At first I thought it’s a bargain considering the size and relatively complex mechanism. That should win his interest for a while. But not long after my son started to play with it (with his usual vigor) one of the legs was broken. Apparently the joints were not as sturdy, making them vulnerable under rigorous strain. He cried out of disappointment, and took time for us to calm him down.
Here’s another one [Exhibit 2]. The box says that it’s a transformable car-robot.
Here’s how it looks like in car mode [Exhibit 3].
Again price was the consideration when I purchased this toy. It still can function perfectly, but the problem lies with its design. I run into considerable difficulties explaining the thing for him.
S: What is it dad?
D: It’s a robot
S: Where is the head?
D: This is the head, can’t you see?
S: It’s not a head
D: Here look, these are the eyes. And this is, err… the mouth.
S: It’s not robot. Ugly toy.
And he threw it away, just like that. Judging from the look I guess he is right. Who would recognize this thing as a robot? Only those with extremely imaginative minds can remotely consider this thing as one. You can’t fool little kids with this stupid design.
So the merit of better quality toys to mention a few:
1) Relatively longer life span (instead of 18 hours it can last for, say, 48 hours?)
2) Save you from the trouble explaining the mechanism, function or simply what it is.
There you go, next time don’t be too stingy.
***
Monday, December 18, 2006
Polygyny Justified
I can not help commenting on the polygyny issue being hotly debated recently. What the fuss it’s all about anyway? Islam allows a man to have 4 wives, period. The issue should be whether women have been empowered and protected by law to express their dissatisfaction with their husbands’ decision, by filing for divorce without losing their financial rights and the rights to foster the children. If you can’t keep your man from marrying other woman, let him pay dearly for his decision. That should make him think twice.
But again, I guess you’ve heard enough about that. From other directions, my friend the economist has briefly discussed the rationale behind polygyny. Now I’d like to discuss polygyny from evolutionary biologist position. That is, trying to explain whether there is any functional advantage of polygyny for our species’ continued existence. I based this largely from Jared Diamond’s work.
Jared Diamond, renown for his book “Guns, Germs & Steel”, wrote “The Third Chimpanzee” back in 1991. In this book he argues that since we are just another species of mammal (we share more than 98% of our genes with 2 species of chimpanzee—hence the title) many of our traits can be traced back from our animal heritage. One of these traits is human’s sexuality.
Evolution process has created a unique species, where as a result of language capability and higher intelligence human developed a dependency on tools for its survival. Thus rather than developed claws and fangs to catch its preys, human created tools and organized hunting, resulting in a more effective way to get protein source compared with other carnivorous species.
But it also has its trade-off. Higher intelligence is a result of an increased brain’s size, hence larger capacity of the container (cranium / head) is needed. But there is no way that female pelvis can accommodate a full-grown head during birth. The solution is by getting the infant out when size of the head can still be accommodated by the pelvis. As a consequence, human’s infant needs considerable time to reach maturity compared with other species.
In hunter-gatherer society rearing a child is an expensive activity which can only be done by a team of a father and a mother. The couple needs to stay together for a considerable period to do this. But before that, human father who will invest heavily on the upbringing of his offspring needs to have some confidence in his paternity. This is the rationale behind marriage institution, and it can be concluded that monogamous marriage is the norm for human species.
What about other alternatives? Promiscuousness would not work. In promiscuous environment there is no certainty on the fatherhood and no father would want to rear other’s child. So while promiscuousness maximized the probability of genes passed on, it is not efficient since the survival of a child single handedly raised by the mother can not be guaranteed. Polygyny maximized both the probability of genes passed on and survival rate of the offspring, but it’s very expensive for hunter-gather society. Until our ancestors invented agriculture polgygyny institution is largely unsustainable. Hence for a long period of our history monogamous marriage remains the most efficient way to ensure the continuity of our existence.
Then human re-invented polgyny institution and extra-marital sex. Why? Because sex is fun? Of course sex is always fun, otherwise no one would be interested to do so. But from the evolution theory point of view, the fun part is just an incentive / by-product while the main objective of copulation is to pass on your genes through reproduction. If now human only look for the fun part it’s because human social preference has evolved. Now the by-product has become more important than the objective.
Back to polygyny. Biologically a man potentially can sire far more offspring than a woman. The record lifetime number of offspring for a man is 888 from 500 wives, sired by Emperor Moulay Ismail of Morocco, while the corresponding record for a woman is only 69 (several triplets). In one polyandrous society, the Tre-ba of Tibet, women with 2 husbands average fewer children than women with one husband. In contrast in 19th century American Mormon society, men with one wife averaged only 7 children but men with two wives averaged 16 children, and those with three wives averaged 20. Polygynous Mormon men as a group averaged 2.4 wives and 15 children. Similarly, among the polygynous Temne people of Sierra Leone, a man’s average number of children increases from 1.7 to 7 as his number of wives increases from 1 to 5.
From that it is clear that when number of offspring is the objective, polygyny is superior to monogamous marriage. While the norm is monogamy given the limited resources, polygyny is preferred when things become more affordable. And as I mentioned before, after our ancestors invented agriculture and left the hunter-gatherer way of life, polygyny became more sustainable. At least for kings and nobles initially, but as the world GDP / capita exploded in the last 2000 years more commoners also practicing polygyny, albeit still in smaller percentage compared with monogamous marriage.
What about extra-marital sex? In short it’s cheating. Well, of course it’s cheating, but what I mean, for a man it’s the most economical way to pass on his gene and let other man unconsciously rearing his offspring. As what is the biological incentive for women to be involved in extra-marital sex remains unknown, since most of the time the seed from one man is sufficient for a woman to produce an offspring.
**
As for myself, I’m indifferent towards polygyny, that is I don’t agree nor disagree with the practice. Ethically it is debatable, but what interesting here is to see the nature of polygyny from science point of view. About this issue Jarred Diamond succinctly says:
***
But again, I guess you’ve heard enough about that. From other directions, my friend the economist has briefly discussed the rationale behind polygyny. Now I’d like to discuss polygyny from evolutionary biologist position. That is, trying to explain whether there is any functional advantage of polygyny for our species’ continued existence. I based this largely from Jared Diamond’s work.
Jared Diamond, renown for his book “Guns, Germs & Steel”, wrote “The Third Chimpanzee” back in 1991. In this book he argues that since we are just another species of mammal (we share more than 98% of our genes with 2 species of chimpanzee—hence the title) many of our traits can be traced back from our animal heritage. One of these traits is human’s sexuality.
Evolution process has created a unique species, where as a result of language capability and higher intelligence human developed a dependency on tools for its survival. Thus rather than developed claws and fangs to catch its preys, human created tools and organized hunting, resulting in a more effective way to get protein source compared with other carnivorous species.
But it also has its trade-off. Higher intelligence is a result of an increased brain’s size, hence larger capacity of the container (cranium / head) is needed. But there is no way that female pelvis can accommodate a full-grown head during birth. The solution is by getting the infant out when size of the head can still be accommodated by the pelvis. As a consequence, human’s infant needs considerable time to reach maturity compared with other species.
In hunter-gatherer society rearing a child is an expensive activity which can only be done by a team of a father and a mother. The couple needs to stay together for a considerable period to do this. But before that, human father who will invest heavily on the upbringing of his offspring needs to have some confidence in his paternity. This is the rationale behind marriage institution, and it can be concluded that monogamous marriage is the norm for human species.
What about other alternatives? Promiscuousness would not work. In promiscuous environment there is no certainty on the fatherhood and no father would want to rear other’s child. So while promiscuousness maximized the probability of genes passed on, it is not efficient since the survival of a child single handedly raised by the mother can not be guaranteed. Polygyny maximized both the probability of genes passed on and survival rate of the offspring, but it’s very expensive for hunter-gather society. Until our ancestors invented agriculture polgygyny institution is largely unsustainable. Hence for a long period of our history monogamous marriage remains the most efficient way to ensure the continuity of our existence.
Then human re-invented polgyny institution and extra-marital sex. Why? Because sex is fun? Of course sex is always fun, otherwise no one would be interested to do so. But from the evolution theory point of view, the fun part is just an incentive / by-product while the main objective of copulation is to pass on your genes through reproduction. If now human only look for the fun part it’s because human social preference has evolved. Now the by-product has become more important than the objective.
Back to polygyny. Biologically a man potentially can sire far more offspring than a woman. The record lifetime number of offspring for a man is 888 from 500 wives, sired by Emperor Moulay Ismail of Morocco, while the corresponding record for a woman is only 69 (several triplets). In one polyandrous society, the Tre-ba of Tibet, women with 2 husbands average fewer children than women with one husband. In contrast in 19th century American Mormon society, men with one wife averaged only 7 children but men with two wives averaged 16 children, and those with three wives averaged 20. Polygynous Mormon men as a group averaged 2.4 wives and 15 children. Similarly, among the polygynous Temne people of Sierra Leone, a man’s average number of children increases from 1.7 to 7 as his number of wives increases from 1 to 5.
From that it is clear that when number of offspring is the objective, polygyny is superior to monogamous marriage. While the norm is monogamy given the limited resources, polygyny is preferred when things become more affordable. And as I mentioned before, after our ancestors invented agriculture and left the hunter-gatherer way of life, polygyny became more sustainable. At least for kings and nobles initially, but as the world GDP / capita exploded in the last 2000 years more commoners also practicing polygyny, albeit still in smaller percentage compared with monogamous marriage.
What about extra-marital sex? In short it’s cheating. Well, of course it’s cheating, but what I mean, for a man it’s the most economical way to pass on his gene and let other man unconsciously rearing his offspring. As what is the biological incentive for women to be involved in extra-marital sex remains unknown, since most of the time the seed from one man is sufficient for a woman to produce an offspring.
**
As for myself, I’m indifferent towards polygyny, that is I don’t agree nor disagree with the practice. Ethically it is debatable, but what interesting here is to see the nature of polygyny from science point of view. About this issue Jarred Diamond succinctly says:
In short, we evolved, like other animals to win the reproduction game. That contest has a single aim, to leave as may descendants as possible. Much of the legacy of that game strategy is still with us. But we have also chosen to pursue ethical goals, which can conflict with the goals and methods of the sexual contest. Having that choice among goals represents one of our most radical departures from other animals.
***
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Confession of an Ex-Future Dentist
Have I told you that I went to dentistry school back then? Well, it was a long time ago and it only last for 2 semesters. At the end of the last semester I thought that this is not for me, applied for another major, took the entry exam, and ended up studying economics instead.
Why did I quit? Not because of the environment. Although it’s in Surabaya instead of my hometown Jakarta, I had wonderful friends whose companionship I retained until now, and close relatives who made my life a lot more easier.
I couldn’t keep up with the subjects? Never a straight A student, but with a GPA of 3.0 I wasn’t doing badly. But there’s some truth in there. I was still in my sophomore year hence the lectures I went though were basically pretty generic. But then I saw the major challenge ahead. To be a dentist it’s not enough to be smart, you have to be pretty dexterous with your hands too. The difficulties I saw my seniors had to go through made me weak at the knees.
There was a pragmatic reasoning as well. Once you got your degree you can’t just open a practice. You have to go through “PTT”, kind of drafting in military service, where you have to serve in a puskesmas mostly in remote areas. Only after you completed 2 years of service the health department can give you a license to open your own practice. But not yet, the equipment needed to open a practice is also quite dear. Too long before you can enjoy your money.
As for the reason I chose to study dentistry at the first place, well, what can I say? It’s so unimaginative. Since I spent 2 years majoring in biology at high school why not go to medical or dentistry school, I thought. But then again, medical school is way out of my league. Next thing to do was checking the ratio between seats available vs. numbers of applicants. Most medical school: 1 seat every 5000 or so applicants. Not good. But then “Dentistry, Airlangga University” with 1:200 ratio was a reasonable bet. I wasn’t that desperate though to apply for some major with 1:25 ratio. So you can see there’s no idealistic motive behind the selection. That’s history though.
Recently I met with a good friend of mine who has the guts to continue and completed his study in dentistry. He has his own practice right now, and not doing bad at all. And then there’s another relative of mine who’s also a dentist, once showed me his (yet another) newest car, a latest edition of Benz. He told me, “this is a 3-months worth of work. And can you please tell me again why did you leave your study?” Oh my.
But above all, it’s not the money I envy. You see, that friend of mine (in his own words) is a moderately successful dentist with 5 patients each day on average. He bought his house 3 years ago in cash and his daily itinerary looks like this: work out at fitness centre or softball field in the morning, surf the internet after lunch, play with his kid in the afternoon, open the “business” at 5.00 PM at home. Moreover he’s moonlighting as a pitcher in the national soft ball league (for the fun of it rather than for the money), sometimes leaving his practice for more than 1 month. No boss, respectable job, steady income and enough time to enjoy it. Can you ask for more?
***
Why did I quit? Not because of the environment. Although it’s in Surabaya instead of my hometown Jakarta, I had wonderful friends whose companionship I retained until now, and close relatives who made my life a lot more easier.
I couldn’t keep up with the subjects? Never a straight A student, but with a GPA of 3.0 I wasn’t doing badly. But there’s some truth in there. I was still in my sophomore year hence the lectures I went though were basically pretty generic. But then I saw the major challenge ahead. To be a dentist it’s not enough to be smart, you have to be pretty dexterous with your hands too. The difficulties I saw my seniors had to go through made me weak at the knees.
There was a pragmatic reasoning as well. Once you got your degree you can’t just open a practice. You have to go through “PTT”, kind of drafting in military service, where you have to serve in a puskesmas mostly in remote areas. Only after you completed 2 years of service the health department can give you a license to open your own practice. But not yet, the equipment needed to open a practice is also quite dear. Too long before you can enjoy your money.
As for the reason I chose to study dentistry at the first place, well, what can I say? It’s so unimaginative. Since I spent 2 years majoring in biology at high school why not go to medical or dentistry school, I thought. But then again, medical school is way out of my league. Next thing to do was checking the ratio between seats available vs. numbers of applicants. Most medical school: 1 seat every 5000 or so applicants. Not good. But then “Dentistry, Airlangga University” with 1:200 ratio was a reasonable bet. I wasn’t that desperate though to apply for some major with 1:25 ratio. So you can see there’s no idealistic motive behind the selection. That’s history though.
Recently I met with a good friend of mine who has the guts to continue and completed his study in dentistry. He has his own practice right now, and not doing bad at all. And then there’s another relative of mine who’s also a dentist, once showed me his (yet another) newest car, a latest edition of Benz. He told me, “this is a 3-months worth of work. And can you please tell me again why did you leave your study?” Oh my.
But above all, it’s not the money I envy. You see, that friend of mine (in his own words) is a moderately successful dentist with 5 patients each day on average. He bought his house 3 years ago in cash and his daily itinerary looks like this: work out at fitness centre or softball field in the morning, surf the internet after lunch, play with his kid in the afternoon, open the “business” at 5.00 PM at home. Moreover he’s moonlighting as a pitcher in the national soft ball league (for the fun of it rather than for the money), sometimes leaving his practice for more than 1 month. No boss, respectable job, steady income and enough time to enjoy it. Can you ask for more?
***
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Andronikos Komnenos
Earlier I have posted a short history of Amangkurat I and his bloody legacy. Now I would like to take you further back in time, to the 12th century Constantinople, the capital of Byzantine Empire, to show you that cruelty towards others is not a monopoly of a certain nation, religion, race, ethnic group or tribe.
Warning! My depiction below will be graphic and those who has strong objection is advised not to continue further. And like before please don’t take it too seriously, this is only a popular history. I shamelessly cut and paste the pieces from Wikipedia and roman-emperors.com.
Like many kingdoms before and after it, Byzantine also had its moments of glory and darkness. But under the Komnenos dynasty (1081 – 1185) Contantinople once again reached a new height. With a population of almost 1 million people, and the vast amount of wealth gained from the trades, Constantinople can be considered as the first cosmopolitan city in the history. It didn’t hurt that the first crusade had successfully gained territory in the Middle East, since more trade opportunities arouse from the conquest.
One of the most brilliant kings from this dynasty is Manuel Komnenos. He continued conquering territories enlarging the empire and maintained a solid, well-functioning government to administer the vassals. Manuel had a cousin in the name of Prince Andronikos Komnenos which was very close to him. Andronikos is a fascinating character. He was reportedly handsome and eloquent, but also immoral. He was courageous, a great general and an able politician.
Most of the life of Andronikos was spent on womanizing. He left no chances and slept with all kind of women; from street prostitute to noble ladies, from 12-years old to older women. When he wasn’t busy bedding woman, he was entertaining his imperial ambition by continuously trying to take the throne from his own cousin. As a result, most of his life was also spent in exile far from Constantinople. He avoided harsher punishment only because Manuel’s repeated pardons. But Andronikos was not a man of compassion, as we can see below.
Manuel died in 1180 and left the throne to his 11 years-old son: Alexius II Porphyrogenitus, who ruled under the guardianship of the empress Maria of Antioch and her lover the Protosebastos Alexius. She didn’t rule wisely and her conduct displeased the population, who turned to Andronikos for an alternative, which gave him a pretext to step in.
And then, here’s an excerpt from the chronicle of Nikeas Choniates (1155-1215)
A chilling way to start your reign. Surprisingly Andronikos was a popular ruler among the commoners, because he reformed taxes and continuously provided money for the poor. But to the nobles he was tyrannical and cruel. He was fearful that they might take his throne, no doubt because he had tried similar thing. Those suspected of treason were punished by blinding / gouging, impaling, roasting, mutilating and many other forms of horrendous torture.
His reign didn’t last long. In 1185 a popular noble revolt overthrown him. What awaited Andronikos was horrible. Again, an excerpt from the chronicle of Nikeas.
The graphical account of the cruelty made me dizzy even now, long after the first time I read that. Let me ask you this: have you ever known any other species conduct such cruelties toward their own kind? To torture their own kind out of hatred? Whoever says that human is created in perfection from the image of God must be either wrong (or insane), or has long admitted that there’s a shade of evil in God’s image.
***
Warning! My depiction below will be graphic and those who has strong objection is advised not to continue further. And like before please don’t take it too seriously, this is only a popular history. I shamelessly cut and paste the pieces from Wikipedia and roman-emperors.com.
Like many kingdoms before and after it, Byzantine also had its moments of glory and darkness. But under the Komnenos dynasty (1081 – 1185) Contantinople once again reached a new height. With a population of almost 1 million people, and the vast amount of wealth gained from the trades, Constantinople can be considered as the first cosmopolitan city in the history. It didn’t hurt that the first crusade had successfully gained territory in the Middle East, since more trade opportunities arouse from the conquest.
One of the most brilliant kings from this dynasty is Manuel Komnenos. He continued conquering territories enlarging the empire and maintained a solid, well-functioning government to administer the vassals. Manuel had a cousin in the name of Prince Andronikos Komnenos which was very close to him. Andronikos is a fascinating character. He was reportedly handsome and eloquent, but also immoral. He was courageous, a great general and an able politician.
Most of the life of Andronikos was spent on womanizing. He left no chances and slept with all kind of women; from street prostitute to noble ladies, from 12-years old to older women. When he wasn’t busy bedding woman, he was entertaining his imperial ambition by continuously trying to take the throne from his own cousin. As a result, most of his life was also spent in exile far from Constantinople. He avoided harsher punishment only because Manuel’s repeated pardons. But Andronikos was not a man of compassion, as we can see below.
Manuel died in 1180 and left the throne to his 11 years-old son: Alexius II Porphyrogenitus, who ruled under the guardianship of the empress Maria of Antioch and her lover the Protosebastos Alexius. She didn’t rule wisely and her conduct displeased the population, who turned to Andronikos for an alternative, which gave him a pretext to step in.
And then, here’s an excerpt from the chronicle of Nikeas Choniates (1155-1215)
“Andronikos marched to the capital in 1182. The Protosebastos was blinded and Andronikos took further measures to consolidate his own position: poisoning Maria Porphyrogenita (Alexius II’s older sister) and her husband Kaiser Renier of Montferrat, having Maria of Antioch accused on a charge of treason and strangled. Finally, once he had been declared co-emperor with Alexius II, having the boy throttled with a bowstring. The reign of terror had begun”
A chilling way to start your reign. Surprisingly Andronikos was a popular ruler among the commoners, because he reformed taxes and continuously provided money for the poor. But to the nobles he was tyrannical and cruel. He was fearful that they might take his throne, no doubt because he had tried similar thing. Those suspected of treason were punished by blinding / gouging, impaling, roasting, mutilating and many other forms of horrendous torture.
His reign didn’t last long. In 1185 a popular noble revolt overthrown him. What awaited Andronikos was horrible. Again, an excerpt from the chronicle of Nikeas.
“He was confined in the prison of Anemas. Then he was paraded in front of the new emperor Isaac. His beard was torn out, his head shaved, teeth pulled out and he was made the sport of those who were present, being battered even by women whose husbands he had executed or had blinded.
Finally, his right hand was cut off with an axe, and several days later one of his eyes was gouged out and he was seated on a camel and paraded in the marketplace. Further indignities followed, including blows on the head from clubs and befouling of his nostrils with cow dung and the like. He was pelted with stones and one prostitute poured a pot of hot water over his face. He was led into the arena, and suspended by his feet.
Despite all these indignities, however, Andronicus held up bravely and remained speechless, not uttering a single moan. Worse followed, with assaults on his genitals. Some were trying to put the lump of what had been his right hand into his mouth. And then there was the thrust of a sword down his throat and further wounds, resulting in an agonizing death. The Constantinopolitan populace had by now had their fill of Andronicus' tyranny and cruelty”
The graphical account of the cruelty made me dizzy even now, long after the first time I read that. Let me ask you this: have you ever known any other species conduct such cruelties toward their own kind? To torture their own kind out of hatred? Whoever says that human is created in perfection from the image of God must be either wrong (or insane), or has long admitted that there’s a shade of evil in God’s image.
***
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Ahmad Dhani
Watched TV the other day and saw Ahmad Dhani gave an ultimatum to his wife, personnel of Ratu, Maia. He wants her back as a housewife taking care of their kids rather than being involved in the entertainment business. “Either Ratu stops its activities in 2007 or Dhani-Maia disbanded”, he said in his typical cocky manner.
Asked whether his decision was due to his concern that the ever increasing popularity of Ratu will eventually overshadow Dewa, he predictably answered, “for me Ratu is nothing, it is I who created Ratu. It’s in different class altogether compared with Dewa.”
Coming from him, such arrogance, controversy, over-confidence and blatant expression is not surprising for us. And yet most of the people I know, can understand his style. They still hate him, but they can understand him. Why? He is a genius and successful artist. And a genius has the privilege to be cocky because he has proved that he’s above the rest of us, mere mortal beings—at least in music.
I’m not going to argue with that. But I have to admit that Dhani is different. He might be politically incorrect by requiring his wife to stay at home. And the way he conveys his message doesn’t help either. But at least he has the honesty to say it loud. Good publicity be damn, he always pours his thought out on every topics anyone dare to ask.
Look, how many of those artists have the guts to say something like that to the media. Most only say: "yes we have a problem, but we’re trying to work it out". Or if it’s a split: "we have irrevocable differences we can’t sort out". Less savvy ones: "no comment" or "none of your business". And a well-rehearsed answers when being asked about fellow musician: "they’re good musicians too, but our fans / segments / music styles are different".
C’mon, you’re all artists. We love to hear controversies from you, so cut the crap and give us juicy gossips. And in you’re world being nice is not the norm, so why all this courtesy? We crave for bad news--about you of course. Our ordinary life is full of s**t, we’d like to hear rich and beautiful people like you occasionally have problems too. Just to remind us that you’re not perfect and there’s justice in this world after all.
But of course nobody wants to look like the bad guy / gal. There’s the Azharis with their expressive expletive but they simply don’t have thebrain style. Dhani easily outclass them, that’s why we love to hate him. He will not hide behind trivial reasons. He talks, lives and does everything the way he likes it. And by doing that, he avoids mediocrity. For sure, Dhani is the epitome of a real man.
***
Asked whether his decision was due to his concern that the ever increasing popularity of Ratu will eventually overshadow Dewa, he predictably answered, “for me Ratu is nothing, it is I who created Ratu. It’s in different class altogether compared with Dewa.”
Coming from him, such arrogance, controversy, over-confidence and blatant expression is not surprising for us. And yet most of the people I know, can understand his style. They still hate him, but they can understand him. Why? He is a genius and successful artist. And a genius has the privilege to be cocky because he has proved that he’s above the rest of us, mere mortal beings—at least in music.
I’m not going to argue with that. But I have to admit that Dhani is different. He might be politically incorrect by requiring his wife to stay at home. And the way he conveys his message doesn’t help either. But at least he has the honesty to say it loud. Good publicity be damn, he always pours his thought out on every topics anyone dare to ask.
Look, how many of those artists have the guts to say something like that to the media. Most only say: "yes we have a problem, but we’re trying to work it out". Or if it’s a split: "we have irrevocable differences we can’t sort out". Less savvy ones: "no comment" or "none of your business". And a well-rehearsed answers when being asked about fellow musician: "they’re good musicians too, but our fans / segments / music styles are different".
C’mon, you’re all artists. We love to hear controversies from you, so cut the crap and give us juicy gossips. And in you’re world being nice is not the norm, so why all this courtesy? We crave for bad news--about you of course. Our ordinary life is full of s**t, we’d like to hear rich and beautiful people like you occasionally have problems too. Just to remind us that you’re not perfect and there’s justice in this world after all.
But of course nobody wants to look like the bad guy / gal. There’s the Azharis with their expressive expletive but they simply don’t have the
***
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Self Confidence
Alias Pede, atau tepatnya menurut EYD: kepercayaan diri. Yang satu ini kayaknya udah jadi sesuatu yang maha penting buat orang zaman sekarang. Coba aja hitung berapa banyak seminar yang mengangkat topik seputar masalah ini. Terus, berapa banyak produk (jenis, merek) yang diiklankan mampu meningkatkan rasa Pede. Hmm. Apa iya ya sudah segitu parahnya krisis Pede yang terjadi, secara justru masih banyak tuh contoh over Pede. Misalnya kejadian berikut.
Lokasi: tempat fotokopi; peserta: gue baru selesai fotokopi, ada satu orang lagi baru selesai fotokopi juga, lagi nulis nulis; latar belakang: baru selesai fotokopi eh hujan turun. Gue tunggu sebentar deh sambil minum teh botol dan ngerokok, daripada basah kalau lari-lari ke mobil? Sembari berdiri gue ngeliat sekilas apa yang difotokopi sama dia, ternyata lamaran kerja. Terus, ngeliat gue lagi bengong aja, dia memulai percakapan.
Dia (D): Sori, boleh tanya nggak.
Gue (G): Ya?
D: Nulis “milyar” yang bener gimana ya?
G: Oh, itu M-I-L-Y-A-R.
D: Nggak pakai D?
G: Nggak usah. Bahasa Indonesia-nya yang bener ya itu.
D: Oh gitu, makasih ya.
G: Oke.
(Diem sebentar, dia sibuk sendiri)
D: Pak, mau tanya lagi nih
G: Boleh.
D: Ini kalau saya disuruh tempel alamat di “kiri atas” ini di sini ya? (Nunjuk posisi agak tengah-tengah amplop coklat)
G: Mmm, bukannya di sini ya. (Sambil nunjuk posisi “kiri atas”).
D: Iya juga ya. Makasih ya pak.
G: He eh.
(Diem lagi, dia nulis nulis. Penasaran, gue mulai percakapan)
G: Mas, sebenernya…
D: Iya? (karena gue panggil dia mulai terpecah perhatiannya).Waduh jadi salah nulis nih.
G: Oh, sori sori.
D: Yah, nggak apa deh. Cuma satu kok, masih ada yang lain. Kenapa tadi pak?
G: Mmm, kalau boleh tau sebenernya mau ngelamar di mana ya?
D: Ini ada lowongan untuk jadi Manajer BPR xxx. Kayaknya bagus nih. Syaratnya mesti S1 sih, padahal saya cuma D3. Nanti kalau sudah keterima saya terusin aja. Bisa dong?
G: Eh, iya bisa kali ya. Sebelumnya pernah kerja di mana?
D: Yah, sebenernya belum pernah sih pak. Ini baru mulai ngelamar.
G: Nggak nyari posisi lain?
D: Cari juga, tapi yang sesuai dengan pendidikan dong. Ini kayaknya paling cocok, saya kan dari manajemen.
G: Oh gitu, ya udah deh semoga sukses kalau gitu.
D: Makasih infonya pak, makin yakin nih buat ngelamar.
G: Iya.
Calon Manajer BPR? Ini dia, kepercayaan diri yang luar biasa. Belum pernah kerja, kualifikasi nggak sesuai dan kompetensi kelihatannya juga pas-pasan. Tapi tetep dong, maju terus! Gimana, masih mau bilang orang kita krisis Pede?
***
Dukun
You must have read about Ki Gendeng Pamungkas recently. He tried to put a spell on Bush which will make him feel terrified once he entered Istana Bogor and shorten his visit in Indonesia. Apparently it didn’t happen. Confronted with this fact, he answered nonchalantly, "how could I win if I was surrounded by 10 skillful Jewish dukuns. It’s good that I came unscratched from the fight." [Rakyat Merdeka Nov. 21].
He said that initially he only fought 5 of them, and quite successful in creating some problems to Air Force One. But then 5 more of these Jewish dukuns came, and the balance tipped to their favor. Typical dukunish reasoning don’t you think?
I purposely used "dukun" instead of a customary translation "shaman" here. Somehow the word "shaman" produce an image of a low profile, old, wise guy who uses his vast knowledge in a subtle way to help others, with no material motives behind. On the other hand, the word "dukun" creates an image of an opportunistic fraud, which uses his skill with words to sway his dim-witted victims for their money. In our daily life, we use the word dukun to ridicule others.
(+)Men, kayaknya hari ini lo bakal dapet rejeki nomplok deh.
(-)Ah dasar mbah dukun. Bilang aja kalau mau minta dibayarin makan siang.
(+)Iya ya...he he.
(+)Hey man, smells like fresh money is coming your way today.
(-)Oh Mr. dukun. Can’t you just say you want me to buy your lunch?
(+)That’s true...ha ha.
[This itch starts to annoy me by the way]
And I have several experiences with their like. First when a friend of my wife had her jewelries stolen by her servant. For the most part it’s her own fault, since she kept the jewelries in her unlocked room. She tried everything to locate the culprit to no avail. Finally she heard about this dukun, and asked me and my wife to accompany her to his place. She then consulted the dukun for some hours while we waited outside. And then she came out, looked less depressed than before. She said the dukun could not lock the culprit since she was using some kind of charm herself. But he had done what he could to stop her for crossing open water—meant she’s cursed to stay in Java forever.
And, that’s it. This dukun was smart enough to be vague but hopeful. But I don’t need to be half that smart to come out with something like that. And I give my bullshit for free to anyone care to listen—or read.
[Hurt myself for scratching too hard. Can’t stand this itch]
The other one is worse. This "orang-pintar" (literally smart guy, but actually means wise guy, yet another euphemism for dukun) promised to cure my relative’s illness. She has terminal cancer but refused to be treated in the hospital. Instead she relied on alternative medicine; this orang-pintar was one of them. So the big family gathered in her place as requested by the orang-pintar, to pray together while he performed the medication inside her room. Several hours later he emerged to announce that the operation showed initial success. There were several sessions needed lasting for 2 weeks and my relative actually felt better—she claimed. But that’s just an illusion since one month later she passed away.
When challenged, this orang-pintar said that during the praying session some participants had doubts on his ability, resulting in unsuccessful medication. See the pattern? Dukun Rule #1: when not prevail, blame others.
The final twist. Ki Gendeng Pamungkas mentioned that his spell will last for quite some times. As a result George W. Bush will lose in the next election. [Rakyat Merdeka Nov. 21] When later Bush will not even run for the U.S. presidency because he already served twice, Ki Gendeng Pamungkas can choose between the following dukunish reasoning:
(a) He meant when Bush is running for Iran’s Presidency. Yes, he has that ambition, just wait and see.
(b) He has actually succeeded in failing Bush’s attempt to change the Amendment that prevents him to serve for more than 2 terms. Thus, Bush can’t run because he—Ki Gendeng Pamungkas—has prevented it.
(c) And don’t forget, this time he is not only fighting 10 Jewish dukuns, but also 13 Voodoo dukuns, 27 Shoshone-Indian dukuns and 18 Druids dukuns.
Well that’s typical for...
[Wonder why this itch in my body won’t stop. Ouch, this itch is killing me, never had it like this before. Hey I’m red all over, they’re not even there this morning. Or…is it santet? Oh my God, help mbah dukun! I promise not to make fun of you anymore, just get me out of this misery please!]
***
He said that initially he only fought 5 of them, and quite successful in creating some problems to Air Force One. But then 5 more of these Jewish dukuns came, and the balance tipped to their favor. Typical dukunish reasoning don’t you think?
I purposely used "dukun" instead of a customary translation "shaman" here. Somehow the word "shaman" produce an image of a low profile, old, wise guy who uses his vast knowledge in a subtle way to help others, with no material motives behind. On the other hand, the word "dukun" creates an image of an opportunistic fraud, which uses his skill with words to sway his dim-witted victims for their money. In our daily life, we use the word dukun to ridicule others.
(+)Men, kayaknya hari ini lo bakal dapet rejeki nomplok deh.
(-)Ah dasar mbah dukun. Bilang aja kalau mau minta dibayarin makan siang.
(+)Iya ya...he he.
(+)Hey man, smells like fresh money is coming your way today.
(-)Oh Mr. dukun. Can’t you just say you want me to buy your lunch?
(+)That’s true...ha ha.
[This itch starts to annoy me by the way]
And I have several experiences with their like. First when a friend of my wife had her jewelries stolen by her servant. For the most part it’s her own fault, since she kept the jewelries in her unlocked room. She tried everything to locate the culprit to no avail. Finally she heard about this dukun, and asked me and my wife to accompany her to his place. She then consulted the dukun for some hours while we waited outside. And then she came out, looked less depressed than before. She said the dukun could not lock the culprit since she was using some kind of charm herself. But he had done what he could to stop her for crossing open water—meant she’s cursed to stay in Java forever.
And, that’s it. This dukun was smart enough to be vague but hopeful. But I don’t need to be half that smart to come out with something like that. And I give my bullshit for free to anyone care to listen—or read.
[Hurt myself for scratching too hard. Can’t stand this itch]
The other one is worse. This "orang-pintar" (literally smart guy, but actually means wise guy, yet another euphemism for dukun) promised to cure my relative’s illness. She has terminal cancer but refused to be treated in the hospital. Instead she relied on alternative medicine; this orang-pintar was one of them. So the big family gathered in her place as requested by the orang-pintar, to pray together while he performed the medication inside her room. Several hours later he emerged to announce that the operation showed initial success. There were several sessions needed lasting for 2 weeks and my relative actually felt better—she claimed. But that’s just an illusion since one month later she passed away.
When challenged, this orang-pintar said that during the praying session some participants had doubts on his ability, resulting in unsuccessful medication. See the pattern? Dukun Rule #1: when not prevail, blame others.
The final twist. Ki Gendeng Pamungkas mentioned that his spell will last for quite some times. As a result George W. Bush will lose in the next election. [Rakyat Merdeka Nov. 21] When later Bush will not even run for the U.S. presidency because he already served twice, Ki Gendeng Pamungkas can choose between the following dukunish reasoning:
(a) He meant when Bush is running for Iran’s Presidency. Yes, he has that ambition, just wait and see.
(b) He has actually succeeded in failing Bush’s attempt to change the Amendment that prevents him to serve for more than 2 terms. Thus, Bush can’t run because he—Ki Gendeng Pamungkas—has prevented it.
(c) And don’t forget, this time he is not only fighting 10 Jewish dukuns, but also 13 Voodoo dukuns, 27 Shoshone-Indian dukuns and 18 Druids dukuns.
Well that’s typical for...
[Wonder why this itch in my body won’t stop. Ouch, this itch is killing me, never had it like this before. Hey I’m red all over, they’re not even there this morning. Or…is it santet? Oh my God, help mbah dukun! I promise not to make fun of you anymore, just get me out of this misery please!]
***
Monday, November 13, 2006
Work Life Balance
Subtly represents my mood today. Small details: instead of broken X Box, I have poor internet connection...And don't bother to press the "Read More" button this time.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
God Bless America
I know that there are not too many of you reading this blog on regular basis. Still, apologize for the hiatus, I don’t plan to make a habit out of it. When I started this not so long ago, I was planning like updating this blog every other day. Too ambitious maybe, but I don’t want you to accuse me of being, how to say this, warm warm chicken shit (anget anget tai ayam in Bahasa).
Anyway, interesting development in the US in the past 2 days don’t you think? But not at all very surprising, in fact we have expected it from sometimes back. Close, but no, I’m not talking about Britney Spears filing a divorce. It’s about the Democrats dominating the House of Representatives again after 12 years.
It seems funny to expect what happened in the US will affect our life here. And what a reverse. I remember back in 2001, in a pre 9/11 world when George W. just won the presidency. There was a hot debate in my old college mate mailing list. Most of us were happy that a Republican candidate was elected. We thought that the paternalistic style of the Democrat Clinton will be over.
If you recall, all military ties were severed by the Clinton administration, due to what happened in East Timor. In fact, they linked everything with their democracy standard. No aid for corrupt governments, no assistance for countries with poor human-rights records, no business deal with countries ruled by military junta. And preaching what is good for us.
We thought that Republican will be more pragmatic, less idealist, friendly with big business. The result: good for the world, good for us. How naïve we were…
Of course 9/11 changes everything. But I suspect that even without it George W. administration is still too pragmatic, has low respect on moral value, and too friendly with big business. It doesn’t care that Pakistan is ruled by military junta, Kazakhtan by pseudo-democratic government, and China has poor human-rights records. Iraq? Halliburton of course. As long as it serves their purpose the Bush administration would turn a blind eye. And guess what, still preaching what is good for us.
I’m no political expert, to be precise realpolitik has always been low in my list. But I guess I have put my priority correctly: you can’t expect too much from politicians, be them in Indonesia or anywhere else. Even now, when I quietly cheer Democrat’s victory, I don’t think much will change with the world. The US government will continue pursue its own interest; the rest of the world is nothing but its supporting roles, replaceable once they don’t serve its interest.
Not everything from the new world is bad news though. Hugo Chaves, Evo Moralez, Lula da Silva and now please welcome: Ariel Ortega and his Sandinista. Looks like being left is back in trend.
***
Anyway, interesting development in the US in the past 2 days don’t you think? But not at all very surprising, in fact we have expected it from sometimes back. Close, but no, I’m not talking about Britney Spears filing a divorce. It’s about the Democrats dominating the House of Representatives again after 12 years.
It seems funny to expect what happened in the US will affect our life here. And what a reverse. I remember back in 2001, in a pre 9/11 world when George W. just won the presidency. There was a hot debate in my old college mate mailing list. Most of us were happy that a Republican candidate was elected. We thought that the paternalistic style of the Democrat Clinton will be over.
If you recall, all military ties were severed by the Clinton administration, due to what happened in East Timor. In fact, they linked everything with their democracy standard. No aid for corrupt governments, no assistance for countries with poor human-rights records, no business deal with countries ruled by military junta. And preaching what is good for us.
We thought that Republican will be more pragmatic, less idealist, friendly with big business. The result: good for the world, good for us. How naïve we were…
Of course 9/11 changes everything. But I suspect that even without it George W. administration is still too pragmatic, has low respect on moral value, and too friendly with big business. It doesn’t care that Pakistan is ruled by military junta, Kazakhtan by pseudo-democratic government, and China has poor human-rights records. Iraq? Halliburton of course. As long as it serves their purpose the Bush administration would turn a blind eye. And guess what, still preaching what is good for us.
I’m no political expert, to be precise realpolitik has always been low in my list. But I guess I have put my priority correctly: you can’t expect too much from politicians, be them in Indonesia or anywhere else. Even now, when I quietly cheer Democrat’s victory, I don’t think much will change with the world. The US government will continue pursue its own interest; the rest of the world is nothing but its supporting roles, replaceable once they don’t serve its interest.
Not everything from the new world is bad news though. Hugo Chaves, Evo Moralez, Lula da Silva and now please welcome: Ariel Ortega and his Sandinista. Looks like being left is back in trend.
***
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Parenting 101 (Part 3)
Hubungan orangtua dan anak ternyata rumit juga ya. Mirip seperti tarik tambang, ada saat-saat orangtua harus mengalah sama anak, dan sebaliknya ada permintaan anak yang tidak harus dipenuhi orangtua. Memang sih, dalam kasus gue yang terjadi lebih banyak gue mengalah sama anak. Tapi dalam beberapa situasi, orangtua tetap harus tegas: tidak boleh! Ada prinsip-prinsip yang tidak boleh dilanggar, batasan yang harus diketahui oleh si anak. Contohnya adalah kejadian baru-baru ini.
Gue dan istri mengajak si Yuka bermain ke tempat bermain anak yang ada di Senayan City. Apa ya namanya? Kalau nggak salah Play Mall gitu. Banyak permainan yang menarik buat anak kecil di situ. Si Yuka betah banget jadinya deh. Satu jam berlalu, masih asik juga tuh. Oke lah, kita tambah satu jam lagi. Eh, udah abis waktunya kok belum mau keluar juga. Padahal ini udah jam makan buat Yuka (dan orangtuanya juga udah kelaperan gitu...he he)
Inilah saatnya orangtua harus bersikap tegas. Yuka, sudah cukup. Dan proteslah dia, dalam bentuk (apalagi kalau bukan) menangis sejadi-jadinya. Tapi sebagai orangtua yang tegas kita tetap memaksa dia keluar, sepertiga ditarik, sepertiga digendong, sepertiga dibujuk. Tapi tetep dong nangis terus. Apakah kemudian kita berubah pikiran? Tentu tidak. Apalagi, ini yang terpenting, apa kata dunia bila orangtua modern macam kita ini selalu memenuhi tuntutan anaknya. Memanjakan anak secara berlebihan tidak ada dalam kamus kita.
Nomor dua, ini juga penting, kita berdua merasakan tatapan tajam dari para orangtua modern yang lain. Jangan menyerah! Biar si anak tahu, who’s in charge. Kalau nggak, seumur hidup kalian akan diperbudak oleh tuntutan mereka! Ya, kita bisa membaca pikiran para orangtua yang lain. Dan tentu saja, kita sependapat. Akhirnya sukseslah si Yuka dibawa keluar dari arena permainan.
Tapi si Yuka tetep manyun tuh. Makan, minum susu udah sukses, tapi kok kayaknya masih sedih ya? Mukanya itu lho. Waduh gimana nih. Ya, hal itu akhirnya muncul juga. Hal yang banyak dialami orangtua modern di manapun juga, terlepas dari seberapa tegasnya mereka. Please welcome: guilty feelings. Hmmm. Yuka mau beli mainan Hot Wheels? Mau ayah. Dan pergilah kita membeli bukan satu, bukan dua, tapi tiga buah mobil Hot Wheels buatan Mattel Inc. Dan tersenyumlah si Yuka.
Oh, kami memang orangtua yang lemah...
***
Gue dan istri mengajak si Yuka bermain ke tempat bermain anak yang ada di Senayan City. Apa ya namanya? Kalau nggak salah Play Mall gitu. Banyak permainan yang menarik buat anak kecil di situ. Si Yuka betah banget jadinya deh. Satu jam berlalu, masih asik juga tuh. Oke lah, kita tambah satu jam lagi. Eh, udah abis waktunya kok belum mau keluar juga. Padahal ini udah jam makan buat Yuka (dan orangtuanya juga udah kelaperan gitu...he he)
Inilah saatnya orangtua harus bersikap tegas. Yuka, sudah cukup. Dan proteslah dia, dalam bentuk (apalagi kalau bukan) menangis sejadi-jadinya. Tapi sebagai orangtua yang tegas kita tetap memaksa dia keluar, sepertiga ditarik, sepertiga digendong, sepertiga dibujuk. Tapi tetep dong nangis terus. Apakah kemudian kita berubah pikiran? Tentu tidak. Apalagi, ini yang terpenting, apa kata dunia bila orangtua modern macam kita ini selalu memenuhi tuntutan anaknya. Memanjakan anak secara berlebihan tidak ada dalam kamus kita.
Nomor dua, ini juga penting, kita berdua merasakan tatapan tajam dari para orangtua modern yang lain. Jangan menyerah! Biar si anak tahu, who’s in charge. Kalau nggak, seumur hidup kalian akan diperbudak oleh tuntutan mereka! Ya, kita bisa membaca pikiran para orangtua yang lain. Dan tentu saja, kita sependapat. Akhirnya sukseslah si Yuka dibawa keluar dari arena permainan.
Tapi si Yuka tetep manyun tuh. Makan, minum susu udah sukses, tapi kok kayaknya masih sedih ya? Mukanya itu lho. Waduh gimana nih. Ya, hal itu akhirnya muncul juga. Hal yang banyak dialami orangtua modern di manapun juga, terlepas dari seberapa tegasnya mereka. Please welcome: guilty feelings. Hmmm. Yuka mau beli mainan Hot Wheels? Mau ayah. Dan pergilah kita membeli bukan satu, bukan dua, tapi tiga buah mobil Hot Wheels buatan Mattel Inc. Dan tersenyumlah si Yuka.
Oh, kami memang orangtua yang lemah...
***
On Being a Skeptic
Note: it starts with a comment in my friend’s blog, from a guy claiming he’s an atheist. So sure he is with the claim that God doesn’t exist, it actually reminds me of myself in the old days. You know, we were immortal back then. But as we grow old we are not too sure anymore, about anything. We’re skeptical. People says it’s alright and that actually the sign of maturity. Is it true? I don’t know. I’m a skeptic remember?
Anyway, ends up I wrote this comment. At the beginning what I had in mind was a plea for this guy to continue question everything. But after I read it again, it looks like I have written something about my value, which I hold dear to my heart. Worth to post it here...maybe.
**
Ah mas Narto, senang sekali mengetahui bahwa ada orang Indonesia yang dengan lantang mengakui dirinya atheist. Mungkin banyak yang dalam hatinya seperti itu tapi yang out of the closet seperti mas Narto nggak banyak. Seperti fenomena gay begitu...he he. Sori cuman bercanda.
Saya cuman berharap mas Narto tidak menjadi atheist hanya karena alasan sesederhana itu (karena tidak percaya adanya mukjizat). Agama, seperti halnya ilmu pengetahuan mengalami perkembangan juga. Penafsiran saklek tentang mukjizat seperti itu rasanya sudah ketinggalan zaman. Kreasionisme (tentang terciptanya kehidupan di muka bumi) sudah nggak laku lagi, intelligent design juga banyak diperdebatkan.
Alih-alih, cerita dalam kitab suci harus dilihat sebagai alegori, tamsil tentang kondisi manusia, dan pengantar bagaimana caranya agar manusia bisa merasakan kehadiran Tuhan. Merasakan kehadiran Tuhan menurut banyak orang adalah cara untuk meningkatkan kualitas hidup manusia. Itu saja.
Saya juga nggak mau bilang kalau fungsi agama atau kepercayaan pada tuhan adalah sebagai pedoman moral manusia, karena penganut atheisme sudah pasti bilang: “memangnya kalau tidak percaya tuhan berarti tidak bisa bermoral?” Hal ini sudah disimpulkan sekian lama lalu oleh Immanuel Kant dengan moral imperative-nya. Ya, menurutnya nalar kita sudah cukup untuk menjadi penunjuk apa yang boleh dan tidak boleh kita lakukan sebagai manusia sosial. Agama tidak relevan lagi di sini.
Namun masih berpedoman pada Immanuel Kant, saya juga tidak tertarik dengan kepastian yang ditawarkan atheisme, yaitu kepastian tentang ketiadaan tuhan. Menurut Kant, hal yang berkaitan dengan keberadaan tuhan berada di luar kemampuan nalar manusia, dan hal yang berada di luar nalar bukan obyek nalar sehingga tidak dapat diperdebatkan. Jadi menurut saya, secara nalar ada atau tidaknya tuhan tidak bisa dipastikan.
Bahkan dalam membahas tuhan, Romo Franz Magnis Suseno dalam bukunya “Menalar Tuhan” (sudah baca? Bagus lho) memberikan banyak batasan dan dia bermain cantik dengan tidak secara gamblang menyimpulkan ada atau tidaknya tuhan. Tapi kayaknya dia kurang meyakinkan tuh waktu berusaha “membuktikan” adanya intelligent design dalam satu bab. Mengenai hal ini saya lebih setuju dengan pendapat Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker, kayaknya buku wajib penganut atheist ya...he he) yang intinya mengatakan bahwa tidak ada yang istimewa dari keberadaan hal-hal yang kelihatannya sudah tersusun rapi dari sono-nya. Karena menurut Dawkins, “siapa bilang itu benar-benar sempurna?” Artinya itu pendapat subyektif dari manusia yang gampang kagum aja. Tentu tidak sesederhana itu, Dawkins menyertakan beberapa argumen ilmiah yang cukup mendalam tentang pendapatnya itu.
Tapi di lain pihak, menjadi rasional berarti harus percaya pada konsep sebab-akibat: harus ada sebab logis dari mengada (being). Nah, ilmu pengetahuan dengan dahsyat menurut saya sejauh ini berhasil merunut kejadian alam semesta ini dari awalnya. Apalagi kalau bukan “Big Bang”. Namun sampai saat ini tidak ada teori yang cukup memuaskan untuk menjelaskan apa yang menyebabkan alam semesta memuai dengan kecepatan luar biasa pada saat (tepatnya: sesaat setelah) terjadinya “Big Bang” itu. Ini kan semacam kreasionisme juga: something out of nothing. Apa ini bukti keberadaan Tuhan? Mungkin saja.
Kita masih bisa berdebat panjang lebar mengenai Tuhan yang cemburu, yang tidak mengenal belas kasihan. Kalau benar Tuhan itu cinta, mengapa Ia membiarkan banyak penderitaan terjadi kepada umatnya? THE ultimate question, if you may. Tapi ruang di sini rasanya terlalu sempit untuk membahas itu.
Intinya: menemukan kepastian itu tidak menantang, yang lebih asik adalah mencari jawaban. Mas Narto contohnya, jadi berhenti bertanya kan? Kalau saya sih lebih cenderung membuka pintu untuk segala kemungkinan, siapa tau ada perkembangan menarik di masa depan. Tentu saja, nggak ada yang bisa melarang atau memaksa kalau mas Narto bersikukuh dengan pendapatnya.
***
Anyway, ends up I wrote this comment. At the beginning what I had in mind was a plea for this guy to continue question everything. But after I read it again, it looks like I have written something about my value, which I hold dear to my heart. Worth to post it here...maybe.
**
Ah mas Narto, senang sekali mengetahui bahwa ada orang Indonesia yang dengan lantang mengakui dirinya atheist. Mungkin banyak yang dalam hatinya seperti itu tapi yang out of the closet seperti mas Narto nggak banyak. Seperti fenomena gay begitu...he he. Sori cuman bercanda.
Saya cuman berharap mas Narto tidak menjadi atheist hanya karena alasan sesederhana itu (karena tidak percaya adanya mukjizat). Agama, seperti halnya ilmu pengetahuan mengalami perkembangan juga. Penafsiran saklek tentang mukjizat seperti itu rasanya sudah ketinggalan zaman. Kreasionisme (tentang terciptanya kehidupan di muka bumi) sudah nggak laku lagi, intelligent design juga banyak diperdebatkan.
Alih-alih, cerita dalam kitab suci harus dilihat sebagai alegori, tamsil tentang kondisi manusia, dan pengantar bagaimana caranya agar manusia bisa merasakan kehadiran Tuhan. Merasakan kehadiran Tuhan menurut banyak orang adalah cara untuk meningkatkan kualitas hidup manusia. Itu saja.
Saya juga nggak mau bilang kalau fungsi agama atau kepercayaan pada tuhan adalah sebagai pedoman moral manusia, karena penganut atheisme sudah pasti bilang: “memangnya kalau tidak percaya tuhan berarti tidak bisa bermoral?” Hal ini sudah disimpulkan sekian lama lalu oleh Immanuel Kant dengan moral imperative-nya. Ya, menurutnya nalar kita sudah cukup untuk menjadi penunjuk apa yang boleh dan tidak boleh kita lakukan sebagai manusia sosial. Agama tidak relevan lagi di sini.
Namun masih berpedoman pada Immanuel Kant, saya juga tidak tertarik dengan kepastian yang ditawarkan atheisme, yaitu kepastian tentang ketiadaan tuhan. Menurut Kant, hal yang berkaitan dengan keberadaan tuhan berada di luar kemampuan nalar manusia, dan hal yang berada di luar nalar bukan obyek nalar sehingga tidak dapat diperdebatkan. Jadi menurut saya, secara nalar ada atau tidaknya tuhan tidak bisa dipastikan.
Bahkan dalam membahas tuhan, Romo Franz Magnis Suseno dalam bukunya “Menalar Tuhan” (sudah baca? Bagus lho) memberikan banyak batasan dan dia bermain cantik dengan tidak secara gamblang menyimpulkan ada atau tidaknya tuhan. Tapi kayaknya dia kurang meyakinkan tuh waktu berusaha “membuktikan” adanya intelligent design dalam satu bab. Mengenai hal ini saya lebih setuju dengan pendapat Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker, kayaknya buku wajib penganut atheist ya...he he) yang intinya mengatakan bahwa tidak ada yang istimewa dari keberadaan hal-hal yang kelihatannya sudah tersusun rapi dari sono-nya. Karena menurut Dawkins, “siapa bilang itu benar-benar sempurna?” Artinya itu pendapat subyektif dari manusia yang gampang kagum aja. Tentu tidak sesederhana itu, Dawkins menyertakan beberapa argumen ilmiah yang cukup mendalam tentang pendapatnya itu.
Tapi di lain pihak, menjadi rasional berarti harus percaya pada konsep sebab-akibat: harus ada sebab logis dari mengada (being). Nah, ilmu pengetahuan dengan dahsyat menurut saya sejauh ini berhasil merunut kejadian alam semesta ini dari awalnya. Apalagi kalau bukan “Big Bang”. Namun sampai saat ini tidak ada teori yang cukup memuaskan untuk menjelaskan apa yang menyebabkan alam semesta memuai dengan kecepatan luar biasa pada saat (tepatnya: sesaat setelah) terjadinya “Big Bang” itu. Ini kan semacam kreasionisme juga: something out of nothing. Apa ini bukti keberadaan Tuhan? Mungkin saja.
Kita masih bisa berdebat panjang lebar mengenai Tuhan yang cemburu, yang tidak mengenal belas kasihan. Kalau benar Tuhan itu cinta, mengapa Ia membiarkan banyak penderitaan terjadi kepada umatnya? THE ultimate question, if you may. Tapi ruang di sini rasanya terlalu sempit untuk membahas itu.
Intinya: menemukan kepastian itu tidak menantang, yang lebih asik adalah mencari jawaban. Mas Narto contohnya, jadi berhenti bertanya kan? Kalau saya sih lebih cenderung membuka pintu untuk segala kemungkinan, siapa tau ada perkembangan menarik di masa depan. Tentu saja, nggak ada yang bisa melarang atau memaksa kalau mas Narto bersikukuh dengan pendapatnya.
***
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Battlefield Football
Football is a physical game, England’s league in particular. During an average England’s game rarely can you see the referee blows his whistle for fouls. In a typical English understatement, the referee doesn’t stop the game after players being lightly fouled and instruct them to continue instead. True, the nature of the refereeing makes the game more dynamic: fast and flowing, unlike Italian games where the whistle is blown every 10 seconds. But lately that leniency is questioned, after several accidents in the past 3 months, involving players in the field.First, there’s Ben Thatcher from Manchester City whose elbowing on Pablo Mendes from Portsmouth made him unconscious and hospitalized for several days. Thatcher got away with it, not a single yellow card from the referee. Luckily FA inquired that incident and gave Thatcher 8 games-ban. His own club also punished Thatcher with a similar ban. Itself a rare occasion proving this is a serious incident, since most clubs prefer to protect their player. Their own interest to be precise. But the public outcry was too strong to be easily dismissed hence damage control need to be done.
Then there’s Shay Given, Newcastle United’s goalie. Given needed emergency surgery for a perforated bowel after being clattered by Marlon Harewood from West Ham United. Given described the pain as like “having acid poured into my stomach”.1 Perforated bowel, I can imagine the pain.
And then the last incidents, when not one but two keepers had to be stretched out in Chelsea vs. Reading game. Petr Cech from Chelsea has his skull fractured after a challenge by Steve Hunt from Reading, when Cech dove to catch the ball. Whether the challenge was intentional or not is still hotly debated. The fact is it’s a life threatening injury, and Cech has to undergo an operation to safe his life. On field, Carlo Cudicini replacing him only to be knocked unconsciously down in a collusion with another Reading’s player. No card shown for both incidents.
Blaming the referee, here’s Arsenal’s Jens Lehmann. “I have never injured a player in my life and I really want to retain this record because I respect my opponents. But now if they want to have a go at me then I will have to change my game because there is no protection from the referees”2. Is that a threat Jens?
But Lehmann has a point. The nature of the game has changed since FIFA introduced back pass rule several years ago. Chris Woods, the former England international and current goalkeeping coach at Everton, explained: “Goalkeepers were always an option before the introduction of the back pass rule but because you can't use your hands anymore it has given the forward more encouragement to keep running at you. Before the back pass rule the forward knew the goalkeeper could pick the ball up and would see no point in going for the ball. Now he knows he might have a chance if he keeps going as the goalkeeper might have a poor first touch or clearance. There is more pressure on the goalkeeper now in that sense”.3
In fact this is exactly what Reading’s coach said in defense for Hunt. “There's no way Hunty went in to damage the keeper but he has a right to put geographical pressure on him”4. You mean: a geographic area with a size of one man’s head?
Anyway worth to wait for FA’s decision on this issue, or even FIFA perhaps. Football has been slow in adopting latest technology both to improve refereeing and to protect the players. Is it because the football body leans more towards Europe rather than America? I mean, the American has embraced the latest technology in sport faster than its European counterparts. For instance radio, 2 referees, video playback have been used to improve refereeing in American’s games. Whereas the football czars in FIFA are not too keen to introduce technology in football, relying on gentlemanly refereeing instead. “To err is human, and the extensive use of technology would only diminish the spirit of the game”, or something like that.
Well, I just hope that the spirit of the game doesn’t cost any life in the future. After all football is only a game, while human’s life value much much more than that. Even the notorious Chelsea’s coach Jose Mourinho can come up with a touching remark this time, aptly summarizing the situation, “I do not care about football. I do not care about Barcelona (their opponent in the next match). I care about my friends”.5
***
1. Independent, Oct. 17, 2006
2. VitaFootbal.co.uk, Oct. 16, 2006
3. Independent, Oct. 17, 2006
4. The Guardian, Oct 16, 2006
5. The Guardian, Oct 16, 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
A Confession
I'm not ready for this. Never was, never will. At first when those experts told me I didn't believe it. But after having second, third opinion I finally relented. This is the end, I have it...
Deep down I still have my doubt. I understand the risk, at the end it could get me there’s no denying it. But so far I’ve done what I can to minimize it—haven’t I tried hard enough? And look at the others. They’re the same with me but why don’t they get it? Some guys were even lucky enough to get around it and died peacefully with their dignity intact. Why can’t I?
There was a time when I used to look down on those who have it. I thought, “I'm not going to be like you my poor brothers. Look at me, a healthy and perfectly functioning human being, proudly cheating it. I’m not going to get it, that’s for sure”. But now I can understand their agony. I admire them for putting a brave face in front of friends and families. I don't know whether I can be that strong. Where’s that bravado?
God please help me I don't know what to do. It's unstoppable and can only get worse. Sure I heard that you might be able to cure it, but not everyone can afford the treatment. I have a family to feed; it just doesn't seem fair if they have to suffer too. After all this is because my own doing, I can’t blame no one.
Should I conceal it? You can always do that. But then again, it's still not a cure, merely preserving a little dignity you have left. I don't know whether it's still any use to do that. I couldn't care less. I'd rather die; I don’t want to suffer for long. I'm too weak to bear this burden. Way too weak.
I guess there's only one thing to do. I owe my loved ones an explanation. I am going to tell them openly about my condition. Only then I can continue to live the rest of my life peacefully. It will take all the courage left in me to say those four words in front of them. To tell them the truth about what is happening to me. I have receding hairlines...
***
Deep down I still have my doubt. I understand the risk, at the end it could get me there’s no denying it. But so far I’ve done what I can to minimize it—haven’t I tried hard enough? And look at the others. They’re the same with me but why don’t they get it? Some guys were even lucky enough to get around it and died peacefully with their dignity intact. Why can’t I?
There was a time when I used to look down on those who have it. I thought, “I'm not going to be like you my poor brothers. Look at me, a healthy and perfectly functioning human being, proudly cheating it. I’m not going to get it, that’s for sure”. But now I can understand their agony. I admire them for putting a brave face in front of friends and families. I don't know whether I can be that strong. Where’s that bravado?
God please help me I don't know what to do. It's unstoppable and can only get worse. Sure I heard that you might be able to cure it, but not everyone can afford the treatment. I have a family to feed; it just doesn't seem fair if they have to suffer too. After all this is because my own doing, I can’t blame no one.
Should I conceal it? You can always do that. But then again, it's still not a cure, merely preserving a little dignity you have left. I don't know whether it's still any use to do that. I couldn't care less. I'd rather die; I don’t want to suffer for long. I'm too weak to bear this burden. Way too weak.
I guess there's only one thing to do. I owe my loved ones an explanation. I am going to tell them openly about my condition. Only then I can continue to live the rest of my life peacefully. It will take all the courage left in me to say those four words in front of them. To tell them the truth about what is happening to me. I have receding hairlines...
***
Monday, October 16, 2006
Amangkurat I - A History of Violence
Sometimes we, who live in Indonesia today, wonder why can’t we live peacefully like in the good old days. Answer: have we ever lived peacefully, really? I mean for us who were born in the 70’s, it seems that the most violent things we have ever seen is “tawuran” between high schools’ students. Unlike now when even the smallest sparkle can ignite all out violence. But I guess deep down you and I know that it’s not the whole truth. That cruelties and malicious acts were happening as well in the Orba era. Worse, because they were institutionalized, conducted in the name of national security and stability. Worse, because the truth was concealed by our very own government, again in the name of public interest.
But then again, it’s not a unique period in our history. Ours is a long record of violence. For you Javanese with royal ancestry, just remember that you can track back your lineage to Ken Arok. Who was he? A common thug who rose to the throne through series of murders, and died because he was killed himself.
And down the line, there’s Amangkurat I, the successor of the mighty Mataram’s king Sultan Agung Hanyokrokusumo. But Amangkurat is the flip side of a coin. While Sultan Agung fought VOC all his life, Amangkurat I befriended them. If Sultan Agung remembered as the one who brought pax javanica, Amangkurat I was notorious for ruining his father's legacy. Whereas Sultan Agung ruled in a (relatively) just manner, Amangkurat I was a paranoid megalomaniac who didn’t hesitate to kill his own wife. If he could kill his own immediate family, what about his subjects then? Let’s elaborate further.
The sources of this piece came from various online sites, you can google it easily. I have books on Java’s history as well, but I left all of them in Jakarta, so I could not consult them. Mind you, this is only a popular history, mostly accurate but not reliable for scientific purpose.
Amangkurat I was one of the numerous offsprings of Sultan Agung. Being the oldest son from the principal wife, he was chosen as the crown-prince. While his father was busily fighting VOC in Batavia, he was raised in luxury inside the keraton.
The nature of the rivalry between Mataram and VOC was actually trade. Mataram was a strong agricultural kingdom, but as the bulk of its territory laid deep inland it was still a minow in the trading business, unlike coastal kingdoms such as Aceh and Makassar also Sriwijaya and Demak earlier. Mataram’s trade through its ports in Cirebon and Tegal were further weakened by VOC control of Batavia. Hence the attacks in 1628 and 1629.
The attacks were fruitless as VOC under J.P. Coen survived the siege and continue controlled the trade network from the relatively undisturbed sea route. Sultan Agung then put an embargo on VOC, prohibited its vassals to trade with it. But the decision backfired, as the already weakened trade channel was choked by the embargo. On top of that the wars waged against VOC were costly. Thus, by the time Amangkurat I rose to the throne in 1645 he inherited an almost empty coffer. Mataram was still rich mind you, but not as strong as under Sultan Agung previously. With limited treasury it could not afford to wage war against VOC, or even to keep its vassals within its territory. Mismanagement by this incompetent ruler adding to the problem.
If you can’t beat them join them. Maybe that’s what Amangkurat thought when he was about to cooperate with VOC. In all objectivity, this was a logical thing to do. Rather than spending time, money and resources fighting a stronger opponent, it’s better to make peace and do business with it. At the same time Amangkurat I could use VOC's hand to crush rebellious vassals trying to set themselves free from Mataram.
Logical indeed, but unfortunately Amangkurat was not strong enough, neither diplomatically shrewd enough. The military aids from VOC came with a cost: concession of Mataram’s territory if not its trade network. VOC’s modus operandi is well studied now; it was to gain monopoly of trade routes in exchange for military or financial aids. Two kingdoms in dispute, intrict around the throne, and rebellious vassals were its favourite.
Against this backdrop—-pressure from work and overshadowed by an all powerful father’s image-—is it any wonder Amangkurat I became a paranoid? Maybe not. And his cruelty is not totally unique either, compared with his fellow local kings or even other kings from distant countries in Europe and Asia. What made him unique is his capacity to crush the ulamas, the religious leaders in the community. Up until then, religious leaders had always had strong position in the palace politics. Hindu, Buddha and Islamic kingdoms in Indonesia had put so much confidence, even regularly consulted the religious leaders for day-to-day business of running the kingdom.
But this king, after hearing a rumor that his rebellious brother Pangeran Alit made a pact with the ulamas to overthrown him, without hesitancy gathered 6,000 ulamas along with their families in “alun-alun”. Then with a cue from a blast of cannon, the massacre began. In 30 minutes all what left were headless bodies. The king and his family had cunningly made themselves unavailable in the palace at that day to avoid repercussion. The day after he came back, he was furious (only an act, by the way) and called few ulamas who survived the massacre. He accused them responsible for the massacre and, when they did not relent, tortured them until they confessed. He killed them anyway, along with their families.
Provoking the ulamas was unprecedented and a dangerous thing to do since ulamas had strong bond with the people. That massacre proved to be the seed of Amangkurat’s downfall later on. But Amangkurat I did it anyway, for the sake of maintaining his power and because he had to show the people that he still held absolute power. While from the point of real-politik this thing was somewhat justified, can you justify the following cruelty?
Amangkurat I had a son, Pangeran Tejaningrat which also known as Adipati Anom. He sent his son to a sort of boarding school. In this boarding school Adipati Anom met a beautiful girl in the name of Larah Hoyi and they fell in love. Unfortunately Larah Hoyi was also a designated concubine for Amangkurat I. Hearing the love affair, Amangkurat I called Adipati Anom back to the palace, and asked him as an act of loyalty to kill Larah Hoyi. Adipati Anom desolatedly obeyed, and Amangkurat I successfully gained one more enemy, a strong one this time.
Later, Adipati Anom joined the Madurese rebel Trunajaya in the almost successful attempt to overthrown Amangkurat I. In 1677 Amangkurat I, a sick old man, died in obscurity when he was fleeing from the rebellions, far from the palace. Adipati Anom replacing him as Amangkurat II, turned his back on Trunajaya and together with VOC captured and killed him. He asked his aides to mutilate Trunajaya and ate his heart and liver as an act of loyalty. Violent reign ended violently.
Yes, some of those accounts were actually coming from the Dutch which—-as all colonialists do-—purposely twisted the image of native people to justify their position. But there are truths in the stories, especially for some coming from Babad Tanah Jawi, the official palace history. Hence we can see that violence, for whatever reasons have been carried out by ourselves for centuries. It was a myth that we were a peace-loving people, it still is. Ever optimistic though, the morale of the story seems to be: don’t glorify your past (or lineage on that matter), and learn from the mistakes instead.
***
But then again, it’s not a unique period in our history. Ours is a long record of violence. For you Javanese with royal ancestry, just remember that you can track back your lineage to Ken Arok. Who was he? A common thug who rose to the throne through series of murders, and died because he was killed himself.
And down the line, there’s Amangkurat I, the successor of the mighty Mataram’s king Sultan Agung Hanyokrokusumo. But Amangkurat is the flip side of a coin. While Sultan Agung fought VOC all his life, Amangkurat I befriended them. If Sultan Agung remembered as the one who brought pax javanica, Amangkurat I was notorious for ruining his father's legacy. Whereas Sultan Agung ruled in a (relatively) just manner, Amangkurat I was a paranoid megalomaniac who didn’t hesitate to kill his own wife. If he could kill his own immediate family, what about his subjects then? Let’s elaborate further.
The sources of this piece came from various online sites, you can google it easily. I have books on Java’s history as well, but I left all of them in Jakarta, so I could not consult them. Mind you, this is only a popular history, mostly accurate but not reliable for scientific purpose.
Amangkurat I was one of the numerous offsprings of Sultan Agung. Being the oldest son from the principal wife, he was chosen as the crown-prince. While his father was busily fighting VOC in Batavia, he was raised in luxury inside the keraton.
The nature of the rivalry between Mataram and VOC was actually trade. Mataram was a strong agricultural kingdom, but as the bulk of its territory laid deep inland it was still a minow in the trading business, unlike coastal kingdoms such as Aceh and Makassar also Sriwijaya and Demak earlier. Mataram’s trade through its ports in Cirebon and Tegal were further weakened by VOC control of Batavia. Hence the attacks in 1628 and 1629.
The attacks were fruitless as VOC under J.P. Coen survived the siege and continue controlled the trade network from the relatively undisturbed sea route. Sultan Agung then put an embargo on VOC, prohibited its vassals to trade with it. But the decision backfired, as the already weakened trade channel was choked by the embargo. On top of that the wars waged against VOC were costly. Thus, by the time Amangkurat I rose to the throne in 1645 he inherited an almost empty coffer. Mataram was still rich mind you, but not as strong as under Sultan Agung previously. With limited treasury it could not afford to wage war against VOC, or even to keep its vassals within its territory. Mismanagement by this incompetent ruler adding to the problem.
If you can’t beat them join them. Maybe that’s what Amangkurat thought when he was about to cooperate with VOC. In all objectivity, this was a logical thing to do. Rather than spending time, money and resources fighting a stronger opponent, it’s better to make peace and do business with it. At the same time Amangkurat I could use VOC's hand to crush rebellious vassals trying to set themselves free from Mataram.
Logical indeed, but unfortunately Amangkurat was not strong enough, neither diplomatically shrewd enough. The military aids from VOC came with a cost: concession of Mataram’s territory if not its trade network. VOC’s modus operandi is well studied now; it was to gain monopoly of trade routes in exchange for military or financial aids. Two kingdoms in dispute, intrict around the throne, and rebellious vassals were its favourite.
Against this backdrop—-pressure from work and overshadowed by an all powerful father’s image-—is it any wonder Amangkurat I became a paranoid? Maybe not. And his cruelty is not totally unique either, compared with his fellow local kings or even other kings from distant countries in Europe and Asia. What made him unique is his capacity to crush the ulamas, the religious leaders in the community. Up until then, religious leaders had always had strong position in the palace politics. Hindu, Buddha and Islamic kingdoms in Indonesia had put so much confidence, even regularly consulted the religious leaders for day-to-day business of running the kingdom.
But this king, after hearing a rumor that his rebellious brother Pangeran Alit made a pact with the ulamas to overthrown him, without hesitancy gathered 6,000 ulamas along with their families in “alun-alun”. Then with a cue from a blast of cannon, the massacre began. In 30 minutes all what left were headless bodies. The king and his family had cunningly made themselves unavailable in the palace at that day to avoid repercussion. The day after he came back, he was furious (only an act, by the way) and called few ulamas who survived the massacre. He accused them responsible for the massacre and, when they did not relent, tortured them until they confessed. He killed them anyway, along with their families.
Provoking the ulamas was unprecedented and a dangerous thing to do since ulamas had strong bond with the people. That massacre proved to be the seed of Amangkurat’s downfall later on. But Amangkurat I did it anyway, for the sake of maintaining his power and because he had to show the people that he still held absolute power. While from the point of real-politik this thing was somewhat justified, can you justify the following cruelty?
Amangkurat I had a son, Pangeran Tejaningrat which also known as Adipati Anom. He sent his son to a sort of boarding school. In this boarding school Adipati Anom met a beautiful girl in the name of Larah Hoyi and they fell in love. Unfortunately Larah Hoyi was also a designated concubine for Amangkurat I. Hearing the love affair, Amangkurat I called Adipati Anom back to the palace, and asked him as an act of loyalty to kill Larah Hoyi. Adipati Anom desolatedly obeyed, and Amangkurat I successfully gained one more enemy, a strong one this time.
Later, Adipati Anom joined the Madurese rebel Trunajaya in the almost successful attempt to overthrown Amangkurat I. In 1677 Amangkurat I, a sick old man, died in obscurity when he was fleeing from the rebellions, far from the palace. Adipati Anom replacing him as Amangkurat II, turned his back on Trunajaya and together with VOC captured and killed him. He asked his aides to mutilate Trunajaya and ate his heart and liver as an act of loyalty. Violent reign ended violently.
Yes, some of those accounts were actually coming from the Dutch which—-as all colonialists do-—purposely twisted the image of native people to justify their position. But there are truths in the stories, especially for some coming from Babad Tanah Jawi, the official palace history. Hence we can see that violence, for whatever reasons have been carried out by ourselves for centuries. It was a myth that we were a peace-loving people, it still is. Ever optimistic though, the morale of the story seems to be: don’t glorify your past (or lineage on that matter), and learn from the mistakes instead.
***
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
The Sukhoi in the Hangar
Welcome to Hasanuddin Airport, Makasar. This airport is actually owned by Indonesian Air Force, that’s why there are Sukhoi fighters in the hangar over there. But Perum Angkasa Pura rent some part of the airport from the Air Force, to service civil transportation. Does it mean the money goes to the military? Military do business in this post Orba era?My friend, don’t be too skeptical. Put it this way: I know so many satpams paid better than the sergeants in the service, and we know it doesn’t sound right. They risk their life daily to protect us civilian, so I guess it’s okay to earn a little pocket money right? Just look at those Sukhoi, they’re going to patrol our territory and protecting us from invaders...
What did you say? They are pitifully armed, if not nothing at all? No money to buy the missiles? Ah but not too worry. Look at those Sukhoi fighters, look closely. You’re intimidated right? That’s because all jet fighters are designed to look menacing. Imagine yourself as the invaders, confronted by those Sukhoi up there in the sky. Armed or not armed, I guarantee you’ll be running for your life the moment you catch sight of those things flying toward you...
Come again? They’re rarely flown? Not enough budget for the fuel? But… well come to think of it we don’t even need to fly them. It’s part of an ingenious plan. You see, we just have to leak the news to the potential invaders (say Malaysia for instance; they’ve robbed us an island!) that a squadron of Sukhoi is stationed here in Hasanuddin airport. Not a full squadron you say? Only 4 actually? Doesn't matter. They will surely get curious and send a spy here to get information. Once they have the info confirmed, they will be frightened knowing we have a squadron of--excuse me--4 Sukhoi fighters and cancel the plan to attack us all together. A very cost efficient way to stop any invasion. I’ve told you: simply ingenious, nobody can come up with such plan.
What if they know they are not armed and rarely flown? Well, who could have that information, you silly. It’s classified, top secret, not a single soul except the top brass in our Air Force know that...and probably some people in government...and us. Hmmm. But again, we won’t share that information with other parties, will you? We, after all, love our dear country, no reason to leak that information.
This country protects us, the military is reliable what else do we need? A little pocket money for the military is still justified. It’s peanut, nothing compared with the protection they give us. With the money they can buy the much needed missiles, fuels and...err...I guess it’s better to stop here.
What? I can’t hear you. No. That’s enough. I don’t need you to differ. No, I don’t need your opinion, you annoying brat. Don’t pester me with stupid questions; I’ll report you for leaking out classified information.
***
Monday, October 09, 2006
Words
Just hate myself for being so cranky today. I guess all of this pressure from work, the exhausting long trip and annoying smog (yes smoke and fog, in Kalimantan now) finally took its toll. Yeah right, lame excuses. Blame it on the weather. As if it justifies being mad to someone over trivial matter.
It’s neither necessary nor productive. Come to think of it, I even took some moments to consider before saying those darn words. It wasn't an uncontrollable-in-the-heat-of-the-moment kind of rage. More like I wanted to, intended to, aggravate someone with those words. My better judgment has eluded me. Hell, I even knew that it might be just a silly misunderstanding. And you know what: it actually was. It’s meaningless, simply meaningless.
I was sorry, and still am, but too proud to openly say that. Now what? Damage check: one ruined relationship, at least one troubled mind, this guilty feeling and a mountain to climb to fix that damage, or whatever left from it. All is a result of less than 20 words. I’m pretty dexterous with words, but no idea I’m that talented. Great, just great…
***
It’s neither necessary nor productive. Come to think of it, I even took some moments to consider before saying those darn words. It wasn't an uncontrollable-in-the-heat-of-the-moment kind of rage. More like I wanted to, intended to, aggravate someone with those words. My better judgment has eluded me. Hell, I even knew that it might be just a silly misunderstanding. And you know what: it actually was. It’s meaningless, simply meaningless.
I was sorry, and still am, but too proud to openly say that. Now what? Damage check: one ruined relationship, at least one troubled mind, this guilty feeling and a mountain to climb to fix that damage, or whatever left from it. All is a result of less than 20 words. I’m pretty dexterous with words, but no idea I’m that talented. Great, just great…
***
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Et Tu Keira?
Oh Keira why do you have to be anorexic? I used to admire you, as an independent soul, different, very much on your own, which placed you above all those mindless (so-called) beauties. But now this look? You have betrayed us and insult our intelligence. Not because you’re being skinnier, but because falling for this silly convention that beauty equals less body fat. Et tu Keira?And here’s a piece from TIME October 2, about the undernourished look that has became the standard among female models / celebrities. Don’t blame the models, they just workers it says, blame the designers! Why do they have to create apparels such as micro skirts, skinny pants et cetera which only fits skinny shape?
No, no my friend, blame us the society for being easily fooled by those fashion czars. We have let ourselves become the victim of the fashion establishment. We crave for the ideal shape and smirk when the models look a bit too curvy. The fashion czars can come up with anything in their minds, but it is us the consumers who should have the final say. Yes, we are bombarded by that preconceived ideal images through various media which besiege us, but we should not give in! Oh Keira, you used to be the torch-bearer in this holy quest, you showed us the way. But now you let us fight alone, it’s too cruel...
***
By the way, I lost 2 kilos during this fasting month. Do you notice?
Thursday, October 05, 2006
The Root of the Matters
Found this interesting post from my friend's blog. I hope nobody mind I re-posted it here along with my comments. I don’t want to say that it is right or wrong, in fact for matters of faith, believe, religion and god you can’t be logically right or wrong. You can only believe. But if you allow me to differ, here’s my opinion. It's started actually with simple question, that with so many religious conflicts, what's in God's mind really? Then came these answers:
The essence of evolution is actually adaptation, survival of the fittest. Following this line of thought then, older imperfect religions must cease to exist because their changed environment won’t allow them to, and give way to more improved ones. They can not live hand-by-hand. Contrarily we can see all around us that the majority of followers of older religions live (at least by their own definition) perfectly happy. They have no need to ‘upgrade’ their faith.
However, this line of thought (evolution of religion) is not totally unique. Nietzche for instance, had used the same argument when he announced the “Death of God”. Human has evolved and at the latest state they can rely perfectly in their logical thinking. Hence no need for God or religion for moral guardian. Free yourself from moral norms and you can be an “Ubbermensch”. Talking about dangerous mind...
Hence I don’t think that evolution of religion can really explain the co-existence of various religions currently. Maybe, it’s more related with marketing strategy. Yes, segmentation. As society evolves different needs emerge. At first you only have one type of automobile—say 4-seats-sedan for argument sake. But then you have needs for different transportation activities, hence buses, trucks, family-car etc. The models might be improved (i.e. Kijang Kapsul, Kijang Innova) but the types remain. There’s no perfect or imperfect here, only different type for different needs, thus they can co-exist.
This is comparable with companies or business entities that set their objective as market-share driven, margin driven et cetera. No matter what your objective is, you should compete legally, within set of rules we had agreed upon. Otherwise none of us can reach our objectives. To force others following our objectives is totally useless, might be illegal and thus counter-productive. Imagine those who set up their companies with an objective of forcing others to follow their way. This is laughable and that people can be considered as deranged. But yes, like business consultants, you can set your objective as persuading other companies to follow your way. To do this however, you have to be invited.
All in all, this concludes that matters of faith, believe, religion and God are personal. Conflicts usually arise because erroneous believe that those matters should be organized in one way or universally fashioned—if you may. Let others live their life in ways they think fit their needs. As long as ones’ believe don’t interfere with others’ we should be all right. Sounds simple but as we have seen daily in this sick world: not easy to be achieved.
So as Captain Spock says: may you live long and prosper my brothers. That’s the Vulcans’ objective by the way...
***
It starts with one question. Do you believe life (eternal life) after death? If you believe it then you become a follower of a religion. If not you are an atheist. A religion is a way / tool to achieve the ultimate objective i.e having God’s love in the eternal life after death in heaven.Let’s suppose that God created all religions. By definition God must be an all-powerful-perfect-being. If God is perfect than God can make no mistake. Then why God created imperfect religions at the first place (a mistake) only to replace them with a more perfect one? That’s the analogy about Windows was all about right? A continuous process of improving things.
First question: Why are there so many religions? Simple analogy: Why does Bill Gates make so many Windows versions? If we ignore the commercial reasons the other reason left was for IMPROVEMENT. So did in the religion. Religion was being evolutionised and improved until last version of religion which is the final and ultimate improvement. Just like Windows they kept improved and made corrections if some bugs exist. The last religion is the improvement and correction to previous ones.
The essence of evolution is actually adaptation, survival of the fittest. Following this line of thought then, older imperfect religions must cease to exist because their changed environment won’t allow them to, and give way to more improved ones. They can not live hand-by-hand. Contrarily we can see all around us that the majority of followers of older religions live (at least by their own definition) perfectly happy. They have no need to ‘upgrade’ their faith.
However, this line of thought (evolution of religion) is not totally unique. Nietzche for instance, had used the same argument when he announced the “Death of God”. Human has evolved and at the latest state they can rely perfectly in their logical thinking. Hence no need for God or religion for moral guardian. Free yourself from moral norms and you can be an “Ubbermensch”. Talking about dangerous mind...
Hence I don’t think that evolution of religion can really explain the co-existence of various religions currently. Maybe, it’s more related with marketing strategy. Yes, segmentation. As society evolves different needs emerge. At first you only have one type of automobile—say 4-seats-sedan for argument sake. But then you have needs for different transportation activities, hence buses, trucks, family-car etc. The models might be improved (i.e. Kijang Kapsul, Kijang Innova) but the types remain. There’s no perfect or imperfect here, only different type for different needs, thus they can co-exist.
Logically it follows then, that it’s irrelevant to say bus is better than sedan as they cater for different needs. This is the answer for question 2: why there are conflicts among religions. I then, tend to agree with the answers given earlier. Some die-hard jeep-owners-club might think that their type of vehicle is the best. This is an erroneous statement since you may say that jeep is not ideal for those who prefer cleaner-more-fuel-efficient vehicle et ceteraSecond question: Why do religions make conflicts? A lot of followers (may be majority) think that:
(1) his / her religion is the only correct one, others are wrong
(2) everybody in the world must follow my religion, if not they are enemy
(3) I have to safe all people in the earth so they must follow me
(4) My religion is majority, the minority is wrong
That followers forget:(1) religion is not a God. A religion is a way / tool that we must believe can guide as to arrive safely in heaven
(2) God creates mankind : as God's representative on the earth which must bring peace and happiness to the earth (not only human but also animals etc)
Third question: Why are there heaven and hell? Some analogy:I agree with the answer that after-life is an objective, hence: heaven and hell. And it follows that our objectives drive the way we live our life. But to say that this is the ONLY objective might undermine other alternatives. Others for instance, may say that life in itself is an objective. Their objective is then to live life the fullest. Their definition of success then, is limited to this life only. Those who believe on heaven and hell seem to set their objective longer than they do, but this should be fine as each of us can not force others to follow our objectives and our definition of success. Why?
(1) Like a travel we have to have destination
(2) Like a business, we have to have business objectives
(3) Like human resource management: there are rewards and punishments
Can you imagine life without objective? We’ll go nowhere! And you will say: Look at Russian and Chinese people. They don’t believe in God, but they are successful (at least compared to Indonesia). They actually make the religion by themselves. Country is like a religion for them.
This is comparable with companies or business entities that set their objective as market-share driven, margin driven et cetera. No matter what your objective is, you should compete legally, within set of rules we had agreed upon. Otherwise none of us can reach our objectives. To force others following our objectives is totally useless, might be illegal and thus counter-productive. Imagine those who set up their companies with an objective of forcing others to follow their way. This is laughable and that people can be considered as deranged. But yes, like business consultants, you can set your objective as persuading other companies to follow your way. To do this however, you have to be invited.
Last question: Why do we make mistakes? Oh yes, we are not angels. Human do make mistakes. But we have ‘user manual’ as our guidance. And God is merciful. So is natural that we make ‘unintended mistakes’ and then ask forgiveness to God. One thing we must not do: to do mistakes / sins that we have already know that they are definitely mistakes / sins.Again, I agree with this. Apparently that’s all we do. Make mistakes after mistakes after mistakes... That’s fine I guess, as long as your mistakes don’t interfere with my effort to reach my objectives. That’s punishable by laws or norms—game rules we’d agreed upon.
All in all, this concludes that matters of faith, believe, religion and God are personal. Conflicts usually arise because erroneous believe that those matters should be organized in one way or universally fashioned—if you may. Let others live their life in ways they think fit their needs. As long as ones’ believe don’t interfere with others’ we should be all right. Sounds simple but as we have seen daily in this sick world: not easy to be achieved.
So as Captain Spock says: may you live long and prosper my brothers. That’s the Vulcans’ objective by the way...
***
Saturday, September 30, 2006
A Strange Dream
"Dear,
I had a strange dream last night. In that dream you asked me to go with you to this dormitory—we’re still college students. You had something to discuss with one of your friend but you won’t say exactly what it was. Somehow you’re full of secret today. In that dormitory you had a lot of friends, but they’re not our mutual friends and I didn’t know any of them.
The dormitory was a large building with many rooms. There was only one way in to / out of the dormitory. First we entered the hall where there was a guard and then you said "stay here" as you went inside. I stayed there, and as I waited I saw some of your friends. Since I had nothing to do I introduced myself and chatted with them. Oh yes, you’re popular there, everybody knew you. But strangely, nobody saw you went inside the dormitory. They were all there, whom you wanted to see actually?
I was like panicking. What happened to you? I reached for my cell phone but it wasn’t there in my pocket. Instead I found a buckle, and I realized it was the safety belt’s buckle from the taxi we rode on to get here. “I must have left the phone in the taxi”, so I thought, panicking even more.
I went with 2 of your friends to their room, and then they left me as they went looking for you. Again I reached for my cell phone, as if it was still there, only to realize yet again that it wasn’t. I could not reach you, I waited but you never came…
Until I woke up, and here’s the strangest part: realizing it was still dark I went back to sleep instantly and the dream started over once again. I reached for my cell phone, it wasn’t there, I could not reach you… and I woke up then went back to sleep straight away, and the dream started over from exactly the same point again. It went like that for 3 or 4 times. I was exhausted.
What worse was the feeling: it was like I had lost you forever. Each recurring dream ended the same way, there’s no way out. Not knowing what had happened to you made it even worse. Did you leave me on purpose? What had I done then? Had something bad happen to you? Then why nobody knew what had happened?
Finally the morning came, and I woke up for good. As my body still refused to climb down from the bed, I just laid there. While starring at the ceilings I thought about the dream. I still had a leftover from that dream, in the same way sweet drinks left an aftertaste in your mouth. Not totally unpleasant, although I almost sure it gave this tingly sensation inside me. Then suddenly it came to me. If it’s true that dreams are re-manifestation of our suppressed feeling, I guess it can only mean one thing: I miss you..."
***
I had a strange dream last night. In that dream you asked me to go with you to this dormitory—we’re still college students. You had something to discuss with one of your friend but you won’t say exactly what it was. Somehow you’re full of secret today. In that dormitory you had a lot of friends, but they’re not our mutual friends and I didn’t know any of them.
The dormitory was a large building with many rooms. There was only one way in to / out of the dormitory. First we entered the hall where there was a guard and then you said "stay here" as you went inside. I stayed there, and as I waited I saw some of your friends. Since I had nothing to do I introduced myself and chatted with them. Oh yes, you’re popular there, everybody knew you. But strangely, nobody saw you went inside the dormitory. They were all there, whom you wanted to see actually?
I was like panicking. What happened to you? I reached for my cell phone but it wasn’t there in my pocket. Instead I found a buckle, and I realized it was the safety belt’s buckle from the taxi we rode on to get here. “I must have left the phone in the taxi”, so I thought, panicking even more.
I went with 2 of your friends to their room, and then they left me as they went looking for you. Again I reached for my cell phone, as if it was still there, only to realize yet again that it wasn’t. I could not reach you, I waited but you never came…
Until I woke up, and here’s the strangest part: realizing it was still dark I went back to sleep instantly and the dream started over once again. I reached for my cell phone, it wasn’t there, I could not reach you… and I woke up then went back to sleep straight away, and the dream started over from exactly the same point again. It went like that for 3 or 4 times. I was exhausted.
What worse was the feeling: it was like I had lost you forever. Each recurring dream ended the same way, there’s no way out. Not knowing what had happened to you made it even worse. Did you leave me on purpose? What had I done then? Had something bad happen to you? Then why nobody knew what had happened?
Finally the morning came, and I woke up for good. As my body still refused to climb down from the bed, I just laid there. While starring at the ceilings I thought about the dream. I still had a leftover from that dream, in the same way sweet drinks left an aftertaste in your mouth. Not totally unpleasant, although I almost sure it gave this tingly sensation inside me. Then suddenly it came to me. If it’s true that dreams are re-manifestation of our suppressed feeling, I guess it can only mean one thing: I miss you..."
***
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Pablo Neruda - Translated
Menemukan terjemahan Indonesia dari Sonnet XVII-nya Pablo Neruda dari sini. Terjemahan yang bagus banget bahkan bila bandingkan dengan bahasa Inggrisnya. Juga coba perhatikan bahwa penerjemahnya, Hasan Aspahani, berhasil mempertahankan rima sonnet dengan baik. Memang seharusnya sih [a-b-b-a] [a-b-b-a] [c-d-c] [c-d-c]. Tapi ini [a-b-b-a] [a-b-a-b] [a-a-a] [c-c-c]. Biar gimana, semangat sonnet-nya tetap kelihatan kok.
Ngomong-ngomong, memuat Sonnet XVII ini ke dalam blog sama sekali nggak unik kok. Sebelum gue, sudah ada 1549 posting lain di blogger memuat puisi ini. Belum di weblog yang lain.
Soneta Cinta Ke-17
Aku tak mencintaimu karena kau mawar, cempaka
atau anyelir berduri yang luncas dari kobar api.
Aku mencintaimu seperti cinta yang tersembunyi,
dalam rahasia, ada di antara malam dan jiwa.
Aku mencintaimu seperti tanaman tak berbunga
cahaya bunga-bunga disimpan di dalam diri.
dan, tersebab anugerah cintamu, bangkit aroma,
dari dalam bumi, hidup, bersebati di tubuh ini.
Aku mencintamu, tanpa tahu bagaimana, darimana dan bilamana.
Aku mencintamu, sesungguh cinta, tanpa syak, tanpa jumawa.
Aku mencintamu, hingga selainnya tak ada lagi cara mencinta.
Tak ada kecuali ini cinta, juga tak engkau dan aku.
Alangkah dekat hingga tanganmu di dadaku adalah tanganku,
begitu karib, hingga ketika aku tidur, memejam jua matamu.
***
Ngomong-ngomong, memuat Sonnet XVII ini ke dalam blog sama sekali nggak unik kok. Sebelum gue, sudah ada 1549 posting lain di blogger memuat puisi ini. Belum di weblog yang lain.
Soneta Cinta Ke-17
Aku tak mencintaimu karena kau mawar, cempaka
atau anyelir berduri yang luncas dari kobar api.
Aku mencintaimu seperti cinta yang tersembunyi,
dalam rahasia, ada di antara malam dan jiwa.
Aku mencintaimu seperti tanaman tak berbunga
cahaya bunga-bunga disimpan di dalam diri.
dan, tersebab anugerah cintamu, bangkit aroma,
dari dalam bumi, hidup, bersebati di tubuh ini.
Aku mencintamu, tanpa tahu bagaimana, darimana dan bilamana.
Aku mencintamu, sesungguh cinta, tanpa syak, tanpa jumawa.
Aku mencintamu, hingga selainnya tak ada lagi cara mencinta.
Tak ada kecuali ini cinta, juga tak engkau dan aku.
Alangkah dekat hingga tanganmu di dadaku adalah tanganku,
begitu karib, hingga ketika aku tidur, memejam jua matamu.
***
Dashboard Confessional
Now about music. In my ipod’s most-played playlist now I have “Dashboard Confessional”. Oh yeah, Emo is definitely in now. Emo is a short of emotional and they call this kind of music Emo apparently because the way the singer performs it: strongly emotional. There’s a report that once when DC sang “This Bitter Pill” he (yes, he, I explain latter) actually shed tears at the end. Even without such theatrical performance, I have to admit there’s so much energy, so much emotion comes from the music and the lyrics. Emo then, is justified.About the name Dashboard Confessional. This is the stage name of Mr. Chris Carabba, a solo singer and not a band name—in the beginning at least because lately he has regular backups and now he doesn’t mind that misconception. Mr. Carabba being an artist, stated his reason "What rulebook says it has to be called your name if you're one guy?" Yeah right, so instead of generally acceptable-easy-to-remember-marketable-mono-syllabic-stage-names such as Sting, Cher, or simpler names such as Bono, Jay-Z you use Dashboard Confessional.
In fact, marketability was not Mr. Carabba claimed he had in mind at first. DC was only a side project, while his “permanent project” it seems, was a front man for “Further Seems Forever” (don’t be confused: this is a band name). While generated a group of loyal listeners with his first 4 albums, commercial success finally came when the song “Vindicated” was included in Spiderman-2 soundtracks. Then with his latest album “Dusk and Summer” stardom at last arrived. Oh yes, as usual the original fans then whining about sacrificing artistic integrity for marketability. As if both can’t go hand in hand. Anyway, still good music in my opinion.
Okay, here’s one example of Mr. Carabba work from his previous album “The Swiss Army Romance”. By the way I don’t know whether there’s any Indonesian band you can call Emo. Padi come to mind. But while Padi’s lyrics are poetic and the music sophisticated, DC’s lyrics are more straightforward with a much simpler music background. Buy the CD and judge it yourself.
A Plain Morning
It is yet to be determined,
but the air is thick,
& my hope is feeling worn.
I'm missing home,
& I'm glad you're not a part of this,
there are parts of me that will be missed.
And the phone is always dead to me,
so I can't tell you the temperature is dropping
& it feels like
it is colder than it ought to be in March
& I still have a day or two ahead of me
till I'll be heading home,
into your arms again.
And the people here are asking after you.
It doesn't make it easier.
It doesn’t make it easier to be away.
I'd like to hire a plane.
I'd see you in the morning,
when the day is fresh.
I'm coming home again.
It's warmer where you're waiting.
It feels more like July.
There's pillows in their cases
& one of those is mine.
And you wrote the words I love you,
& sprayed it with perfume.
It is better than the fire is
to heat this lonely room.
It is warmer where you're waiting
It feels more like July.
***
Monday, September 25, 2006
Parenting 101 (part 2)
Lagi-lagi, jauh sebelum anak gue lahir, gue udah mikirin apa nama yang cukup oke buat anak gue nantinya. Ada beberapa persyaratan:
(1) Nggak boleh aneh, nanti bisa diketawain temennya kalau udah gede, termasuk panggilan singkatnya. Misalnya: Jingga jadi Jing,
(2) Nggak boleh terlalu biasa juga, biar jarang ada yang nyamain. Nggak lucu kan kalau manggil sekali yang nengok 15.
(3) Jangan terlalu berbau asing, baik itu kebule-bulean (kayak nama gue), kearab-araban, dll. Nggak ada alasan khusus, cuma kepengen agak nasionalis aja.
(4) Kalau bisa agak ‘nyastra’, supaya kalau ketemu orang bisa jadi bahan obrolan.
Akhirnya memang kepikiran satu nama yang romantis berat: “Derai Cemara”. Tau kan? Ini diambil dari puisinya Chairil Anwar berikut.
Derai Derai Cemara
Cemara menderai sampai jauh
terasa hari akan jadi malam
ada beberapa dahan di tingkap merapuh
dipukul angin yang terpendam
Aku sekarang orangnya bisa tahan
sudah berapa waktu bukan kanak lagi
tapi dulu memang ada suatu bahan
yang bukan dasar perhitungan kini
Hidup hanya menunda kekalahan
tambah terasing dari cinta sekolah rendah
dan tahu, ada yang tetap tidak terucapkan
sebelum pada akhirnya kita menyerah
“Hidup hanya menunda kekalahan….”, yah memang rada-rada morbid sih, karena dibikin sama Chairil Anwar menjelang ajalnya. Tapi tetep, kalau nggak baca isinya, judulnya keren banget kan.
Sayangnya, tau kalau anaknya bakal laki-laki, istri gue jadi berubah pikiran. Katanya nama kayak gitu terlalu feminin. Yah, ada benernya juga, pasti gara-gara “Cemara” itu. Padahal kan dia bisa aja dipanggil “Ray”.
Akhirnya kita bersepakat untuk menggunakan nama yang gue dapet waktu baca komik Jepang kesukaan gue. Cukup unik lah. Habis itu ditambah nama belakang yang gue ambil dari bahasa Sansakerta. Kan harus dua nama supaya nggak susah waktu buat paspor nanti.
Kenapa bukan pakai nama belakang gue alasannya juga sederhana: gue kan keturunan Jawa dan sebagian besar keturunan Jawa nggak punya fam seperti orang Manado, Ambon atau Tapanuli, kecuali yang berdarah ningrat tentunya. Kakek gue namanya satu doang, bokap gue namanya nggak mengandung 'Rahardian', jadi kenapa harus memulai? (By the way, kakek gue itu adalah pegawai Deplu, gimana ya paspornya waktu itu)
Jadi buat yang akan punya anak, mungkin nama tadi bisa dipakai. Unik, keren, nasionalis, punya makna pula. Bayangin kalau dia cowok, waktu kenalan sama cewek bisa cerita tentang namanya itu: “panggil gue Ray, lengkapnya Derai Cemara. Nama gue diambil dari judul puisi yang ditulis Chairil Anwar…” Best pick up line ever, don’t you think?
Dan kalau dia cewek, cowok yang tergila-gila sama dia bisa dibayangin bakal nulis cerpen yang awalnya kayak gini: “Namanya Derai Cemara, diambil dari judul puisi Chairil Anwar, sang penulis itu. Cemara menderai sampai jauh, terasa hari akan jadi malam. Ya, derai namanya membawa anganku melayang jauh, dan jarak yang memisahkan kita membuat hariku serasa menjadi malam…” Ah!
Nama yang hebat. Kasih tau gue aja kalau nama tadi jadi dipakai…
***
(1) Nggak boleh aneh, nanti bisa diketawain temennya kalau udah gede, termasuk panggilan singkatnya. Misalnya: Jingga jadi Jing,
(2) Nggak boleh terlalu biasa juga, biar jarang ada yang nyamain. Nggak lucu kan kalau manggil sekali yang nengok 15.
(3) Jangan terlalu berbau asing, baik itu kebule-bulean (kayak nama gue), kearab-araban, dll. Nggak ada alasan khusus, cuma kepengen agak nasionalis aja.
(4) Kalau bisa agak ‘nyastra’, supaya kalau ketemu orang bisa jadi bahan obrolan.
Akhirnya memang kepikiran satu nama yang romantis berat: “Derai Cemara”. Tau kan? Ini diambil dari puisinya Chairil Anwar berikut.
Derai Derai Cemara
Cemara menderai sampai jauh
terasa hari akan jadi malam
ada beberapa dahan di tingkap merapuh
dipukul angin yang terpendam
Aku sekarang orangnya bisa tahan
sudah berapa waktu bukan kanak lagi
tapi dulu memang ada suatu bahan
yang bukan dasar perhitungan kini
Hidup hanya menunda kekalahan
tambah terasing dari cinta sekolah rendah
dan tahu, ada yang tetap tidak terucapkan
sebelum pada akhirnya kita menyerah
“Hidup hanya menunda kekalahan….”, yah memang rada-rada morbid sih, karena dibikin sama Chairil Anwar menjelang ajalnya. Tapi tetep, kalau nggak baca isinya, judulnya keren banget kan.
Sayangnya, tau kalau anaknya bakal laki-laki, istri gue jadi berubah pikiran. Katanya nama kayak gitu terlalu feminin. Yah, ada benernya juga, pasti gara-gara “Cemara” itu. Padahal kan dia bisa aja dipanggil “Ray”.
Akhirnya kita bersepakat untuk menggunakan nama yang gue dapet waktu baca komik Jepang kesukaan gue. Cukup unik lah. Habis itu ditambah nama belakang yang gue ambil dari bahasa Sansakerta. Kan harus dua nama supaya nggak susah waktu buat paspor nanti.
Kenapa bukan pakai nama belakang gue alasannya juga sederhana: gue kan keturunan Jawa dan sebagian besar keturunan Jawa nggak punya fam seperti orang Manado, Ambon atau Tapanuli, kecuali yang berdarah ningrat tentunya. Kakek gue namanya satu doang, bokap gue namanya nggak mengandung 'Rahardian', jadi kenapa harus memulai? (By the way, kakek gue itu adalah pegawai Deplu, gimana ya paspornya waktu itu)
Jadi buat yang akan punya anak, mungkin nama tadi bisa dipakai. Unik, keren, nasionalis, punya makna pula. Bayangin kalau dia cowok, waktu kenalan sama cewek bisa cerita tentang namanya itu: “panggil gue Ray, lengkapnya Derai Cemara. Nama gue diambil dari judul puisi yang ditulis Chairil Anwar…” Best pick up line ever, don’t you think?
Dan kalau dia cewek, cowok yang tergila-gila sama dia bisa dibayangin bakal nulis cerpen yang awalnya kayak gini: “Namanya Derai Cemara, diambil dari judul puisi Chairil Anwar, sang penulis itu. Cemara menderai sampai jauh, terasa hari akan jadi malam. Ya, derai namanya membawa anganku melayang jauh, dan jarak yang memisahkan kita membuat hariku serasa menjadi malam…” Ah!
Nama yang hebat. Kasih tau gue aja kalau nama tadi jadi dipakai…
***
Parenting 101 (Part 1)
Boleh percaya apa nggak, gue udah mempersiapkan diri sejak lama untuk menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan sulit yang diajukan anak gue. Lama banget, jauh sebelum dia lahir. Dari dulu gue udah sering mengajukan pertanyaan ke diri gue sendiri seolah-olah pertanyaan tersebut datang dari anak kecil, terus mikir gimana strategi menjawabnya.Sebenernya pertanyaan anak kecil selalu sederhana, cuman bagaimana menjawabnya dengan level yang bisa dimengerti anak tanpa harus berbohong, itu yang sulit. Ya, seninya adalah bagaimana agar anak puas dengan jawaban yang diberikan, sekaligus menjadikan jawaban sederhana itu landasan untuk pemahaman lebih maju kalau dia udah gedean. Nggak sekedar ngeles gitu…
Contoh pertanyaan yang udah gue antisipasi dari dulu adalah sebagai berikut (catatan: percakapan ini adalah kisah nyata, walaupun didramatisir)
Y (Yuka 2.5 tahun): Ayah planet itu apa sih?
G (Gue): Planet itu bola besar yang muterin matahari.
Y: Besar gimana?
G: Besar banget, orang bisa berdiri di atasnya.
Y: Kenapa planet muterin matahari ayah?
G: Karena ada matahari, kalau nggak ada matahari planet pasti jalannya lurus.
Perhatikan, jawaban di atas didasarkan pada Hukum Gerak Newton 1: benda yang bergerak akan terus bergerak dalam lintasan lurus dengan kecepatan tetap bila tidak ada gaya lain yang memengaruhinya.
Y: Ayah pinter ya!
G: Iya dong…he he.
(catatan: nah, itu bagian yang didramatisir…)
Tapi memang ada pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang nggak bisa gue jawab. Tepatnya gue nggak tau apakah jawaban gue bisa dimengerti atau nggak. Kalau sudah terdesak begini coba gunakan pre-emptive delaying and evasive strategy seperti di bawah.
Y: Ayah, Tuhan itu cewek atau cowok?
G: Emmm….
Y: Terus, Tuhan itu baik atau jahat sih?
G: Eh…
Y: Ayah, ayah…
G: Yuka, mau main bola nggak sama ayah?
Y: Mau, mau…
G: ... (lolos untuk sementara)
Mungkin ada yang punya ide lain?
***
Friday, September 22, 2006
Pablo Neruda
Pablo Neruda (1904 – 1973) is one hell of a guy. A poet, a senator, a communist activist, a guerilla fighter, a Nober Prize winner and above all: a lover. Could you ask for more from one man? Enough on Neruda, you know where to look if you want to find out more. Here’s a popular poem by this great poet – one of my fave.
Sonnet XVII
I don't love you as if you were the salt-rose, or topaz,
or arrow of carnations the fire shoots off.
I love you as certain dark things are to be loved,
in secret, between the shadow and the soul.
I love you as the plant that never blooms
but carries in itself the light of hidden flowers;
thanks to your love a certain solid fragrance,
risen from the earth, lives darkly in my body.
I love you without knowing how, or when, or from where.
I love you straightforwardly, without complexities or pride;
So I love you because I don't know any other way.
Than this: where I does not exist nor you
so close that your hand on my chest is my hand,
so close that your eyes close as I fall asleep.
***
Sonnet XVII
I don't love you as if you were the salt-rose, or topaz,
or arrow of carnations the fire shoots off.
I love you as certain dark things are to be loved,
in secret, between the shadow and the soul.
I love you as the plant that never blooms
but carries in itself the light of hidden flowers;
thanks to your love a certain solid fragrance,
risen from the earth, lives darkly in my body.
I love you without knowing how, or when, or from where.
I love you straightforwardly, without complexities or pride;
So I love you because I don't know any other way.
Than this: where I does not exist nor you
so close that your hand on my chest is my hand,
so close that your eyes close as I fall asleep.
***
The Execution of Tibo
On September 22, 2006 Tibo Cs, the convicted Poso killers, were executed in Palu. I just left Palu on September 21, one day before the execution took place. While at that time the situation in Palu remained calm, it was an eerie kind of calmness. The usual hustle bustle of the city was not observed even in the market place; instead people chose to stay at home even before the day was over. Of course it was raining, which rather unusual itself because it had been months since the last rain fell in Palu. The police and the army were everywhere, but somehow I don’t know whether their omni presence should make me feel secure or worry.
Anyway, I’m not going to talk about the situation in Palu. What concern me is the heated debate on whether the execution should be carried out, cancelled all together or delayed. It is too late now I know because at the time I wrote this Tibo Cs have been executed. But the point still linger, was it right to execute Tibo Cs?
I observed 2 major arguments against the execution:
(1) The law process which lead to the ruling is questionable: Tibo Cs were just the henchmen; the ring leaders are still free out there. And With regards to the notorious track record of the Indonesian court of law, it is believed that the ruling was a result of a power play behind it.
Anyway, I’m not going to talk about the situation in Palu. What concern me is the heated debate on whether the execution should be carried out, cancelled all together or delayed. It is too late now I know because at the time I wrote this Tibo Cs have been executed. But the point still linger, was it right to execute Tibo Cs?
I observed 2 major arguments against the execution:
(1) The law process which lead to the ruling is questionable: Tibo Cs were just the henchmen; the ring leaders are still free out there. And With regards to the notorious track record of the Indonesian court of law, it is believed that the ruling was a result of a power play behind it.
(2) Death penalty is against human right; human has no right to kill another human being for whatever reason.
The first argument is a classic one. In each major case like this a conspiracy theory has never failed to loom behind. This is because it concerns a delicate subject in Indonesia: the anxious relation between the Christian minority and the dominant Muslim population. Let's look at them one by one.
Why the process lead to the ruling and the execution was considerably swift compared with those for Amrozy Cs?
In fact, the process has been anything but swift. In my opinion, it was processed at usual speed. Tibo Cs were captured in 2000, gone through multiple trials, asked twice for the president’s pardon etc. until the end at 2006. In comparison, Amrozy Cs were first tried in 2002 shortly after the bombing and still in the death row waiting for the final decision from MA. I can even understand if they speed up the process, due to the huge attention paid to the case, and the bloody footsteps it left behind.
Then why the true ring leaders are not sentenced, or even captured? There must be a big conspiracy behind it all.
This argument emerged because Tibo Cs were just low educated poor farmers. It doesn’t make sense they could plan and organize a large, systematic mass murder like that. I cannot disagree with this argument. I, too, really think that the masterminds are still out there, and it is right to demand a more serious and thorough investigation to get to the bottom of this. Anyhow, it doesn’t make Tibo Cs less guilty. It was proven before the court of law that their hands were bloody.
In any case, it only justifies the decision to delay the execution, so they could really point out the masterminds. To do this however, Tibo Cs had to plead guilty to show that they just followed orders, am I correct? Maybe it would result with something lighter than death penalty. But in fact, they maintained their innocence until the end, as can be read in this statement from their lawyers. (Tibo did mention some names to the police back in 2001 by the way, make it highly susceptible if he was not involved at all).
The Indonesian court of law is an inept, corrupt institution, thus the sentence can not be justified because it’s a result of a flawed process.
Looking back at several courts’ decisions in the recent past, I can’t say I’m happy with that as well. But we should not undermine the good work of the police which was used to build the case against Tibo Cs. They’re no angels I know, but the police have shown they can do a decent job while working on cases like Bali Bombing 1 and 2, Marriot Bombing and other cases of terrorism. They’re under a lot of pressure and too many people watching while they were working for a major case like this. Hence, I believe it is considerably safe to assume that no hanky panky took place while they built the case against Tibo Cs.
As far as I remember from past cases, we were suspicious when the evidences were there but the verdicts were not as “heavy”, or the other way around. The “Justice Matrix” might look like this:
(1) If:
Evidence (our perception of police work)
(-) Weak
(+) Strong
Result (verdicts from the court of law)
(-) Light sentence
(+) Heavy sentence
(2) Then:
Evidence + Result = Our “Feeling of Justice”
(-) + (-) = “It’s a fair trial” example: Tempo vs. Tomy Winata
(+) + (-) = “The judges took a bribe!” example: Buloggate
(-) + (+) = “The judges tweak it” example: Tempo 1996
(+) + (+) = “They deserve it” example: Amrozy Cs.
Mind you, this is not scientific but I believe it’s a good approach to show our feeling of justice. From this matrix, we can see Tibo case can only fall into the 3rd or 4th category. And in this case I strongly believe that the investigation has been done in a decent manner, thus “they deserve it”. I also heard that several Muslims involved in the similar mass murder in Poso were sentenced with lighter verdicts. It should fall under second category.
Lastly, the “Let the one among you who is without sin ...” argument. Well this can go as long as you want like in this site . For me it’s sufficient to say: it’s the law. You can have your point of view against the death sentence. But I think it’s only right if you take it as a matter of principle and not view it in partial, case-by-case situation. I mean, if you oppose the execution of Tibo Cs because you don’t agree with the death sentence per se, you should have similar view against the death sentence for Amrozy Cs, those African drug dealers, etc. Personally, I loath it if Amrozy Cs got less than death sentence. Don’t care if it can also make them damn martyrs. May their souls burn in hell…
***
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Beloved
Ini salah sebuah novel yang udah gue beli cukup lama tapi baru kebaca sekarang. Alasan pembelian, pertama: murah karena buku ini buku bekas; kedua: pengarangnya Toni Morrison; ketiga: karena bukunya sendiri memenangi Pulitzer award, dan terpilih sebagai the Best Work of American Fiction of the Last 25 Years dari survey yang dilakukan oleh The New York Times di kalangan kritikus sastra. Toni Morrison sendiri akhirnya memenangi Nobel Sastra tahun 1993 beberapa tahun setelah menulis buku ini. Bisa dibilang ini adalah Magnum Opus-nya Toni Morrison. Sepertinya buku ini sudah diterjemahkan ke Bahasa Indonesia, walupun gue ragu apakah nuansa yang sama bisa dimunculkan dalam Bahasa Indonesia.Walaupun menjanjikan harus diakui membaca buku ini sampai selesai benar-benar melelahkan dibandingkan dengan buku-buku Toni Morrison lain. Sebabnya ada beberapa hal. Pertama ceritanya sendiri: cerita pada buku ini berkisar pada dunia nyata, dunia khayal, dunia setelah mati, masa lalu dan masa kini. Harus benar-benar diperhatikan siapa yang bercerita pada setiap bagian dan kapan, jika tidak kita bisa kehilangan perspektif—tersesatlah bahasa gampangnya.
Kedua: karakter yang diceritakan dalam buku ini jumlahnya cukup banyak, dan tidak ada yang lebih menonjol dari yang lain. Semua sama penting dan menarik untuk diikuti. Jadi walaupun “Beloved” sebagai judul buku ini adalah nama seorang tokoh utamanya, ia tidak muncul sebagai subjek utama dalam buku, walaupun sebagai obyek ia cukup berperan—titik tolak cerita keseluruhan buku ini bahkan. Dan lagi, semua tokoh punya sejarah dan kerumitan mereka sendiri, sehingga pandangan masing-masing tokoh terhadap satu kejadian yang sama bisa benar-benar berbeda karena dipengaruhi latar belakang masing-masing.
Ketiga adalah gaya berceritanya: dunia nyata, khayalan dalam pikiran dan bahkan kejadian “out of this world” juga dicampur begitu saja, tanpa peringatan, tanpa pembuka dan tanpa alur yang linier. Seakan-akan secara sembarangan, Toni Morrison melempar potongan-potongan cerita sepanjang buku ini yang hanya ia sendiri tahu di mana ujungnya. Dan memang demikianlah struktur dalam buku itu dibuat, yaitu seperti kepingan-kepingan puzzle yang harus kita susun, dan baru pada bagian terakhir semuanya bisa dipahami secara utuh.
Belum lagi sudut pandang penceritanya yang terus beralih. Gaya orang pertama yang berpikir sendiri dan kemudian bercerita tentang diri sendiri pada pembaca, gaya orang kedua yang menceritakan orang lain, dan gaya pihak ketiga sebagai orang luar yang menceritakan kejadian-kejadian tentang tokoh utama. Semuanya dipakai!
Keempat Bahasa Inggrisnya: bikin pusing. Kalau tokohnya berbicara atau berpikir, mereka tidak menggunakan grammar dan vocabulary yang baku. Hal ini jelas disengaja, untuk menggambarkan kemampuan berbahasa tokoh-tokoh di buku ini, yang semuanya dibesarkan dalam dunia perbudakan sebelum perang saudara di Amerika. Masuk akal, karena ini secara efektif menempatkah tokoh-tokohnya pada konteks sejarah dan budaya yang jadi latar belakang cerita.
Tapi yang terpenting sebuah buku tidak akan bisa disebut bagus kalau cerita atau temanya sendiri tidak menarik. Bagaimanapun teknik menulis adalah sekedar alat untuk mengantar dongeng kepada pembaca. Jadi, terlepas dari gaya penulisan Toni Morrison yang rumit seperti disebut di atas, ceritanya sendiri sih oke banget justru karena kompleksnya tema yang diusung.
Tema yang paling jelas menonjol adalah masalah perbudakan dan kekejaman-kekejaman yang mengikutinya. Bisa dilihat bahwa walaupun pada akhirnya menjadi manusia bebas, semua tokoh utama sebenarnya masih “sakit” karena tidak bisa lepas dari bayang-bayang perbudakan yang pernah mereka alami. Pertanyaan tentang apakah arti kebebasan itu terus menggantung sepanjang cerita. Kalau jiwa dan pikiran terus terikat pada masa lalu (seperti yang terjadi pada semua tokoh di buku ini) apa artinya kebebasan fisik?
Sebaliknya di masa lalu, mereka pernah dimiliki oleh seorang yang relatif baik hati sehingga “membebaskan” mereka untuk membuat keputusan untuk diri mereka sendiri “selama semuanya dilakukan dalam lingkup pertanian Sweet Home”. Tapi apa ini namanya juga bebas? Kata Paul D salah seorang tokoh utama “Everything rested on Garner being alive. Without his life each of theirs fell to pieces”. Dan memang begitulah yang terjadi, saat tuan yang baru datang (cuman dijelaskan dengan nama julukannya: schoolteacher) perlakuan kejamlah yang mereka dapat, sehingga mereka memutuskan untuk melarikan diri walaupun kematian jadi bayaran bagi beberapa di antara mereka.
Nah, bila tidak di dunia ini, apakah “pembebasan” yang murni bisa tercapai dalam bentuk kematian? Ironisnya, paling tidak untuk Beloved, ternyata tidak juga. Setelah kematiannya, ia bahkan kembali ke dunia sebagai seorang hantu, penasaran karena ia mati di usia bayi dan sekarang masih haus akan cinta ibunya yang dulu hanya sebentar ia nikmati. Kata “seorang” tadi memang disengaja karena walaupun hanya berupa roh penasaran, Beloved muncul dalam sosok wanita dewasa yang hidup. Bingung kan?
Bagaimana Beloved mati juga jadi tema penting lainnya dalam buku ini. Ini karena ia mati dibunuh oleh ibunya sendiri (lehernya dipotong dengan gergaji) saat masih bayi. Sethe sang ibu, sebenarnya juga sudah berusaha membunuh ketiga anaknya yang lain, tapi mereka berhasil diselamatkan oleh orang-orang di sekitarnya. Sethe ibu yang kejam? Nanti dulu. Ia terdorong untuk melakukan itu karena melihat schoolteacher datang ke rumah untuk mengambil kembali anak-anaknya. Alih-alih menyerahkan anak-anak yang sangat dicintainya pada kehidupan perbudakan yang dia tahu sangat kejam, Sethe memilih untuk membunuh mereka. Memang schoolteacher akhirnya pergi, melihat anak-anak tersebut dalam keadaan (yang dia kira semuanya) mati dan berdarah-darah. Walaupun akhirnya hanya menjalani hukuman penjara selama beberapa tahun, kejadian itu mengubah segalanya bagi Sethe dan ketiga anaknya yang masih hidup. Dua anak laki-lakinya akhirnya kabur dari rumah, Beloved mati, Denver anak perempuan paling kecil tumbuh jadi anak penyendiri yang tidak pernah tahu kehidupan di luar rumahnya sendiri.
Jadi, salahkah Sethe? Ini jadi pertanyaan semua tokoh dalam buku ini, dan masing-masing punya sudut pandang yang menarik tentang hal ini. Kesimpulan akhirnya, buku ini menggambarkan dengan baik (atau menyeramkan tepatnya?) efek dari kejamnya perbudakan, bahkan jauh setelah para budak tersebut diberi kebebasan. Bukan hanya pada orang yang diperbudak, tapi juga bagi keturunannya dan orang-orang yang hidup di sekitarnya. Masa lalu, mereka sadar, memang harus dibuang jauh-jauh supaya bisa melangkah ke masa depan. Persoalannya, bagaimana kalau masa lalu itu terus mengikuti, terlihat setiap hari saat berkaca seperti bekas luka di wajahmu? “The future was sunset; the past something to leave behind. And if it didn't stay behind, well, you might have to stomp it out. Slave life; freed life-every day was a test and a trial. Nothing could be counted on in a world where even when you were a solution you were a problem”.
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)