Along with many people, I have been gripped by the BBC's freshly-made telling of the Nativity story, quite originally titled Nativity, on at 19.00 GMT for four days this week. It was actually quite refreshing to see the whole story through Joseph's eyes, and walk a mile in his shoes. Well, 85 miles in fact, from Nazareth to Bethlehem.
I thought Andrew Buchan, who plays the upstanding William Garrow in Garrow's Law was an outstanding piece of casting. His mild-mannered attitude and gentle demeanour made him the perfect Joseph. Tatiana Maslany, one of the most innocently beautiful women ever to grace the screen made it all the more worthwhile. They together were two inspirational main subjects who brought the whole story to its sweetest conclusion and quite frankly I would have liked it to go on and on and on in that manner, telling the whole story. I might be a Pagan, but I too find the Christmas story humbling, yet empowering. An odd juxtaposition of emotions which culminate in just a day from now.
The reason it was so gripping was because there was no exaggeration, no Ben Hur-style über-glory, no fanfare, no great announcement by archangels, just the bare bones of the story, the poorest of poor shepherds, the Magi following the astronomical signals and two caring parents worried about their daughter and future son-in-law. The other interesting aspect of this particular version was the inclusion of planetary movement, making this astronomical event seem much more relevant, as it should do.
As a Pagan, we respect and tolerate all reasonable religions, and find comfort in and gain knowledge from many of their teachings. I would never shy away from hiding the story of the Nativity from any child of mine, as it is a story of hope, as well as a lesson in the equality of all people at birth. If Jesus could be born in a stall, and become the great man he was, and for many still is, so the dustman's son could one day grow up to be a footballer, the daughter of a party pack salesman could grow up to marry the heir to the throne of the UK, but at the same time, Nicholas II, the Tsar of Russia could be pulled from his haughty position to be executed, and the greatest leader of all time, Winston Churchill, could lose a general election and be a mere commoner the day after.
The Nativity story also tells us that life is a gift. The planet we live on is a beautiful spheroid perfectly climatised to allow us to evolve and gain intelligence to improve our existences. The story also teaches us that death is but a condition for our existence and comes to us all in the end, like a final bill at the end of a prodigious meal. Some of us will be lucky and drop dead without any symptoms. The most shocking for those left behind, but the way most of us would like to depart. Many of us will die of illnesses which we hope we will never get. The long, protracted suffering of my mother is one of the things which made me understand the tenuousness of our lives. Some of us, a very tiny minority in fact, will be killed by another person. This is the greatest crime in any society, and in all right-minded religions. The more brutal the death, the more horrified we are. But there is also war. That is for another day.
The benefits we receive from the Nativity story far outweigh the man-made rules and regulations taken down by human hand afterwards. Christianity today is a shadow of itself - it is losing the battle of hearts and minds, suffering from neglect, threatened with becoming irrelevant, even obsolete. This tragedy is due to the one and only fact: human desire for power. How can those in the Vatican claim to be Jesus's and St Peter's successors when it takes residence in great halls, monasteries, castles and cathedrals worldwide? How can a commercial enterprise fill the space where charity and compassion should be? And how can self-appointed representatives of such a humble man claim to be owners of countless masterpieces of a priceless nature whilst at the same time sanctioning the donation of money at church level to pay for their upkeep?
The fact that the BBC invests money, time and effort into telling the story properly and putting it on TV during prime time tells us a lot about the world we now live in. We are finally going back to basics. The simple things in life are coming back to us. The hubris years of credit cards, big spending and partying may finally be over. This is no time for decadence and carefree living. For the greatest thing taught to us by the Nativity is, we only have the one life. Why have so many people been raised to want more? Why are so many children in the North and West not happy with their situations? If they do not have any brand labels in their pile under the tree, if they do not have the latest downloads for their iPods, if they do not have junk food awaiting them instead of proper meat and vegetables for Christmas dinner, then that is another soul lost to the great demon of consumerism, the religion of the late 20th and early 21st century.
Then there are those that would destroy everything around them for their own beliefs: the fundamentalists, the crackpot element of this world. Why would anyone sane even think that the God of Abraham would consider a hero a person who believes his miserable existence should be ended by exploding himself in a busy street, killing tens or hundreds of innocent members of the public? And why would any sane individual even consider building a nuclear bomb, let alone using it? The story of the Nativity teaches us that very point: life is worth more than any ideological hangup, and certainly more than not having the latest toy/gadget/song to hand.
So maybe, if trends continue this way, the ungratefulness shown by spoiled kids may soon be a thing of the past, and we can get back to reality once again. When you wake up on Christmas morning to open your presents, remember two things: first, the fact that countless numbers of children worldwide will have been sleeping without a roof over their heads and will have no presents this day, and secondly that you are very, very lucky to even be here on this Earth in the first place. Bombs, wars, ideology and established religion are all just rabble-rousing hype. A life lived to the full and enjoyed as often as possible is worth so much more. So make the most of it!
Thursday 23 December 2010
Friday 3 December 2010
How much did it cost, Mr Putin?
So Russia has won the right to host the World Cup in 2018.
Take a look at the following press freedom rankings of the candidate countries:
The Netherlands (3)
Japan (12)
Belgium (14)
Australia (18)
The UK (19)
The USA (20)
Spain (39)
Portugal (40)
South Korea (42)
Qatar (120)
Russia (140)
Now, considering the alleged backhanders and oiled palms that took place in the bidding process, I regard it as a badge of honour that England was last in the votes. Australians should feel proud that their democracy came last in their own election for 2022.
I do not mind whoever won, but the way the day progressed frightened me - is this a sign of the future? I would prefer my country to have press freedom and my human rights respected than win the right to host a football competition in which even the goals scored might not be given because FIFA refuses to allow TV replay evidence.
I hope the UK press is galvanised into running a deeper-than-deep investigation into the dealings of that self-appointed, self-important, self-deifying group of stuffed suits.
There are three places the UK press needs to look:
1. Why did Blatter say China invented football? I knew the writing was on the wall then. After that, he gave a less-than-convincing speech on the need for the losing countries to accept the decision of FIFA. In other words, "we've been doing things behind everyone's backs and we're really worried about the reaction of the losing bidders."
2. Why did 5 members of FIFA tell David Cameron that they could be assured of their votes which then never materialised? Blatter's speech to FIFA delegates just before voting may have had something to do with that, where he told the voters to remember the recent criticism directed at their organisation when they cast their votes.
3. The last place the UK press should look is the pockets of every FIFA member, to make sure they're not getting too full.
I, for one, would welcome this media intrusion. I didn't mind the fact that England lost the voting. I never thought it would win. But the manner in which it happened suggests there was something not right in the voting process.
This is also a mirror of the intransigence which FIFA deploys in regard to their refusal to allow TV evidence to assist referees. It is a powerful hint that it is not in their interests to allow certain results to interfere in the smooth coronation of the world champions.
I have always had a dark brown suspicion that World Cup winners were not always the teams that played the best. Now I am wondering how much it costs a country not just to win the right to host, but to win the World Cup itself.
Well, why don't the larger countries get together and break away from FIFA, set up a rival code and then see who blinks first... Spain, Portugal and Italy would relish the chance to join a breakaway group with England. Then the Germans and Dutch might feel a bit lonely as the biggest European footballing countries still clinging to FIFA. And as the only two larger countries left, a little like the Scottish football league, the Celtic and Rangers of world football, Argentina and Brazil, would not take too long to switch suits either. Then the torrent would come led by France, the Czech Republic, Japan and Scotland. In the end, only Switzerland, Qatar and Russia will be left. They can set up a proper, fan-based democratic football union run on the basis of what is really good for the game.
It'll never happen though. Too many threats from FIFA will see to that.
Now let's get back to playing (mainly) honest sports like cricket, golf and rugby.
Take a look at the following press freedom rankings of the candidate countries:
The Netherlands (3)
Japan (12)
Belgium (14)
Australia (18)
The UK (19)
The USA (20)
Spain (39)
Portugal (40)
South Korea (42)
Qatar (120)
Russia (140)
Now, considering the alleged backhanders and oiled palms that took place in the bidding process, I regard it as a badge of honour that England was last in the votes. Australians should feel proud that their democracy came last in their own election for 2022.
I do not mind whoever won, but the way the day progressed frightened me - is this a sign of the future? I would prefer my country to have press freedom and my human rights respected than win the right to host a football competition in which even the goals scored might not be given because FIFA refuses to allow TV replay evidence.
I hope the UK press is galvanised into running a deeper-than-deep investigation into the dealings of that self-appointed, self-important, self-deifying group of stuffed suits.
There are three places the UK press needs to look:
1. Why did Blatter say China invented football? I knew the writing was on the wall then. After that, he gave a less-than-convincing speech on the need for the losing countries to accept the decision of FIFA. In other words, "we've been doing things behind everyone's backs and we're really worried about the reaction of the losing bidders."
2. Why did 5 members of FIFA tell David Cameron that they could be assured of their votes which then never materialised? Blatter's speech to FIFA delegates just before voting may have had something to do with that, where he told the voters to remember the recent criticism directed at their organisation when they cast their votes.
3. The last place the UK press should look is the pockets of every FIFA member, to make sure they're not getting too full.
I, for one, would welcome this media intrusion. I didn't mind the fact that England lost the voting. I never thought it would win. But the manner in which it happened suggests there was something not right in the voting process.
This is also a mirror of the intransigence which FIFA deploys in regard to their refusal to allow TV evidence to assist referees. It is a powerful hint that it is not in their interests to allow certain results to interfere in the smooth coronation of the world champions.
I have always had a dark brown suspicion that World Cup winners were not always the teams that played the best. Now I am wondering how much it costs a country not just to win the right to host, but to win the World Cup itself.
Well, why don't the larger countries get together and break away from FIFA, set up a rival code and then see who blinks first... Spain, Portugal and Italy would relish the chance to join a breakaway group with England. Then the Germans and Dutch might feel a bit lonely as the biggest European footballing countries still clinging to FIFA. And as the only two larger countries left, a little like the Scottish football league, the Celtic and Rangers of world football, Argentina and Brazil, would not take too long to switch suits either. Then the torrent would come led by France, the Czech Republic, Japan and Scotland. In the end, only Switzerland, Qatar and Russia will be left. They can set up a proper, fan-based democratic football union run on the basis of what is really good for the game.
It'll never happen though. Too many threats from FIFA will see to that.
Now let's get back to playing (mainly) honest sports like cricket, golf and rugby.
Saturday 27 November 2010
The world's worst music genre
There are many styles of music that speak to the heart or quicken the soul: the bandoneon-inspired tango, the tubthumping anthems of a metal group, the simplicity of a folk ballad, the bewildering and beguiling sound emanating from an opera singer's lungs or the hair-raising wall of sound provided by a good old-fashioned big band.
But at the same time, there are some godawful melodies out there. Here are my top (or should it be bottom?) five:
5. Rap
The music with the silent "C", as the joke goes. This is comparatively much further down my list than other people might place it because there are nevertheless some redeeming features. Rap as a genre is a two-faced creature: one face is actually quite brilliant. There can be frustration in the voice, meaningful lyrics with a dark side accompanied by an angry backdrop and a desperate air of inability to change the state of the world. French rap is also particularly good. I defy anyone to tell me that it is not.
But there is also a side to this music which makes one want to leave the room and go and listen to a recorded speech by Fidel Castro. It can go one of two ways: firstly there is the semi-old geezer with his baseball cap on at a precariously adventurous angle, or even on back-to-front if they're really looking for the sales, where he sings of a moral issue and is surrounded by a backing group of real singers. He tries to look cool and in turn it just desecrates the whole act. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Daz Sampson and his now legendary Teenage Life!
The second way is simply brutal and not worth writing about.
4. X Marks the Spot
If there is one thing that distinguishes our generation from that of today it is the variety of skills and talent on offer. When I glimpse trailers of X Factor or something similar, I feel like smashing the television. Or at least shouting at it. There can be nothing worse than knowing that a glorified karaoke run by a narcissistic despot from Hertfordshire and his evil assistants is going to define your children's obsessions which they will look back upon wistfully in twenty years, bemoaning the quality of talent on their televisions and comparing it to their own youth. There is a subgenre here - the songwriters. When they go on to have a career, many of these "singers" cannot read or write music, have but a basic understanding of how timing works and can barely hold a note one octave above middle C. The songs produced for them are therefore melodically unadventurous and full of clichés.
Clichés like "baby", "beautiful", "believe", "heart" and "crazy" are just the start. "Get together", "(whatever) through the night", and many others of course started before Simon Cowell was even born. But surely songwriters and lyricists could add their own twist to the songs they write. Oh, of course, they do: the act. Fire, smoke, backing dancers to start with. But you need to have a routine per song, where you rock from side to side or look pleadingly into the spotlights, change costume at least three times per gig and hawk your new product on everything from breakfast talk shows to appearing on primetime spectacles as the interval act. These people also try to get themselves in the papers every day, either by having someone call up a journalist and tell them where they are to be found, or by doing enough stupid stuff to warrant a full-time photographer who parasitically follows the idiot around, in some cases earning as much as the "star".
If you want to know what I mean, then here is the prime example, the alpha male of all that this soulless world showers on its easily-hooked victims. Despite there being talent of sorts, I still think that the music of my youth and that before me was much more imaginative, being totally unreliant on computers and pyrotechnics, routines and clothes changes.
3. Christian Rock
If you ever want a category that sums up everything that is wrong with religion, it is Christian Rock. Trying to be cool by having a live band in your church thumping out melodies generally known as "praise" is seriously wrong and sends a very, very bad message to those you are trying to draw in. As my views on religion are well-documented, it will come as no surprise when I tell you that the paradoxical nature of mixing rock music, the 20th century's gift to the arts, with a belief as outdated and fuddy-duddy as Christianity is a shockingly underhand tactic to try and tell the world "we can keep up with the times!"
No you cannot.
Ditch the political bigotry associated with religion, allow women the right to be full clergy members, stop saying yours is the only true religion and everyone else is wrong, stop preaching doom and gloom to all sinners (usually unmarried parents or smokers) and finally ditch those silly men who preach by shouting out their beliefs as if theirs is the only voice that counts, then maybe, just maybe, you might be permitted to play rock in your church. Even then, I'm still having trouble pairing the two together. How can you sing songs with euphemistic lyrics like "arise", "lift me up", "worship", "fill my cup", and "mercy" in them and still keep a straight face? Sorry, this particular choice should have taken first place, but there are, I believe, two even more abominable genres than this.
2. Café and public space music
To explain this, I need to go into a little more detail: you're sitting with a friend, some family members or a date on a café terrace, the sun is shining and there are about five nationalities of tourist sitting in a radius of ten metres from you. You're having a quiet lunch/dinner, or a decent chat about things, catching up on news, or simply having a family holiday while it's sunny. Then you hear, drifting across the muttering throngs from a café nearby, the distinct sound of an accordeon, a fiddle and sometimes a singer. The songs are well-known to you, but you just don't remember their names. That also annoys you. I'll name some so you can run a search on them: Ochi Chorniye, Cielito Lindo, Under the Bridges of Paris, That's Amore, Oh Du Lieber Augustin, My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean, La Vie En Rose, Beer Barrel Polka, Kalinka and Those Were The Days.
I know people who get great pleasure from the sounds of the accordeon, but there are surely more songs to play than that. Lady Kirsten also plays the accordeon and her repertoire is a hundred times broader than that of a streetside café busker. She can play songs from Sweden, Israel, Spain, Russia, Serbia, Belgium, Scotland, the USA, England, Wales and a lot of other countries.
The other public space I am referring to is the loud speaker found at railway stations, some pub-restaurants and shopping centres. The kind of music I am about to talk about requires me to prepare myself even to mention the name. That's why I paired it up with naff busking. The word is... euhm... (I feel like someone shy trying to explain to head of personnel I have haemorrhoids and need a new chair) is....
I'll do some more explaining first, to build myself up to it. That might help.
You're in the lobby of a three-star hotel in Kidderminster or Krefeld or Córdoba or Kaliningrad...
You're waiting for your spouse/son/daughter/grandma/secret lover, etc...
You're getting upset for no apparent reason...
Then you realise why. It's the utter bastardisation by re-timing (so-called jazzing-up) of songs you used to love, being slowly put through various stages of torture from limb removal to crucifixion via the codling grinder, turning them into musical monsters. The worst time of year for this contemptuous type of sound to reveal its hideous countenance is December and the weeks leading up to Christmas. I once heard Troïka from Prokofiev's magical Lieutenant Kijé Suite being stabbed to death by the sharpened knives of a trumpet player, a riff drummer and a supporting jazz orchestra. That made me cry. Another time, I heard Silent Night being bludgeoned by a group of musicians who made it sound like Mack the Knife. I stood still in disbelief for at least three minutes afterwards and could only speak again when I had had a whole night's sleep.
Big band is good. But not when it has to switch genres in order to make music.
Benny Goodman, Dizzy Gillespie, Glenn Miller, Joe Loss. All wonderful band leaders in their own right.
Tchaikovsky, Bach, Wagner, Mozart, Prokofiev, Händel. All great composers in their own right.
For the sake of public decency, don't mix the two.
1. Schlager
Utter drivel of the most evil kind. It defiles the entire subject of music and is not even worth the CD it has been burned on. Schlager is the rape of sound. It is the abomination of art, the whore of the radiowaves. There is no devil in Hell who could have thought up Schlager music. It must have been a human as humans are intently much, much more evil than all the demons in the Underworld.
I would define Schlager in several ways: the first, a frilly variety of saccharine sweet ballads sung by women of a certain age or girls who have never seen a male organ, but can hold a guitar whilst being driven along a mountain path on the back of a horse-drawn cart with their friends, Irmtraud, Poldi and Hannes. But it can also be sung by a group of camp, moustachioed Austrians in Mexican sombreros and billowing white shirts carrying musical instruments, pretending they're on their way to Mallorca for a holiday. Or it can be a prodigiously suntanned blond guy who looks 40 but is probably 20 years older than that and wearing a toupée, singing songs of his first love or of his departed girlfriend, gone off with someone new (or should that be young?), whilst he sits at home on a tacky, red geranium-infested Tyrolean balcony with commanding views of the Alps, but oddly featuring regular close-ups of the local village's friendly goat. Let us not forget the blurred camera lens for special watery-eyed effect.
Schlager is Be'elzebub's eardrum. It is blasphemous to even call it music. Schlager is the result of too much incestuousness in the countryside, where generations of farmers' sons have shagged their naïve, uneducated female cousins who think it's a remedy for acne, slipped away from the scene of the act and written a song about marriage, kids, and flowers to atone for their inexplicable desires, which then gets aired on German, Swiss or Austrian local radio and bought by hundreds of thousands of people who know no better.
I think it is a very good thing Schlager music is a post-war thing. Imagine if it had been around before... the events of 1939-1945 would have lasted a lot more briefly. I can see it now - instead of bombing the place to smithereens, we'd have all been terrorised by the sounds of Schlager music and come out with our hands above our heads - "you can switch it off now, we surrender!"
The bus driver who takes me to Luxembourg in the morning likes Schlager music. He is the one I spoke about in a previous article here, who can't smile for love nor money. I believe this to be because he has, for the whole of his life, thought the world was like a Schlager song, and every day that he wakes up realises it isn't. Schlager has turned him into a cantankerous, vindictive and miserable man with little to live for. I just hope he's not at the wheel of his bus when he decides to end it all.
But at the same time, there are some godawful melodies out there. Here are my top (or should it be bottom?) five:
5. Rap
The music with the silent "C", as the joke goes. This is comparatively much further down my list than other people might place it because there are nevertheless some redeeming features. Rap as a genre is a two-faced creature: one face is actually quite brilliant. There can be frustration in the voice, meaningful lyrics with a dark side accompanied by an angry backdrop and a desperate air of inability to change the state of the world. French rap is also particularly good. I defy anyone to tell me that it is not.
But there is also a side to this music which makes one want to leave the room and go and listen to a recorded speech by Fidel Castro. It can go one of two ways: firstly there is the semi-old geezer with his baseball cap on at a precariously adventurous angle, or even on back-to-front if they're really looking for the sales, where he sings of a moral issue and is surrounded by a backing group of real singers. He tries to look cool and in turn it just desecrates the whole act. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Daz Sampson and his now legendary Teenage Life!
The second way is simply brutal and not worth writing about.
4. X Marks the Spot
If there is one thing that distinguishes our generation from that of today it is the variety of skills and talent on offer. When I glimpse trailers of X Factor or something similar, I feel like smashing the television. Or at least shouting at it. There can be nothing worse than knowing that a glorified karaoke run by a narcissistic despot from Hertfordshire and his evil assistants is going to define your children's obsessions which they will look back upon wistfully in twenty years, bemoaning the quality of talent on their televisions and comparing it to their own youth. There is a subgenre here - the songwriters. When they go on to have a career, many of these "singers" cannot read or write music, have but a basic understanding of how timing works and can barely hold a note one octave above middle C. The songs produced for them are therefore melodically unadventurous and full of clichés.
Clichés like "baby", "beautiful", "believe", "heart" and "crazy" are just the start. "Get together", "(whatever) through the night", and many others of course started before Simon Cowell was even born. But surely songwriters and lyricists could add their own twist to the songs they write. Oh, of course, they do: the act. Fire, smoke, backing dancers to start with. But you need to have a routine per song, where you rock from side to side or look pleadingly into the spotlights, change costume at least three times per gig and hawk your new product on everything from breakfast talk shows to appearing on primetime spectacles as the interval act. These people also try to get themselves in the papers every day, either by having someone call up a journalist and tell them where they are to be found, or by doing enough stupid stuff to warrant a full-time photographer who parasitically follows the idiot around, in some cases earning as much as the "star".
If you want to know what I mean, then here is the prime example, the alpha male of all that this soulless world showers on its easily-hooked victims. Despite there being talent of sorts, I still think that the music of my youth and that before me was much more imaginative, being totally unreliant on computers and pyrotechnics, routines and clothes changes.
3. Christian Rock
If you ever want a category that sums up everything that is wrong with religion, it is Christian Rock. Trying to be cool by having a live band in your church thumping out melodies generally known as "praise" is seriously wrong and sends a very, very bad message to those you are trying to draw in. As my views on religion are well-documented, it will come as no surprise when I tell you that the paradoxical nature of mixing rock music, the 20th century's gift to the arts, with a belief as outdated and fuddy-duddy as Christianity is a shockingly underhand tactic to try and tell the world "we can keep up with the times!"
No you cannot.
Ditch the political bigotry associated with religion, allow women the right to be full clergy members, stop saying yours is the only true religion and everyone else is wrong, stop preaching doom and gloom to all sinners (usually unmarried parents or smokers) and finally ditch those silly men who preach by shouting out their beliefs as if theirs is the only voice that counts, then maybe, just maybe, you might be permitted to play rock in your church. Even then, I'm still having trouble pairing the two together. How can you sing songs with euphemistic lyrics like "arise", "lift me up", "worship", "fill my cup", and "mercy" in them and still keep a straight face? Sorry, this particular choice should have taken first place, but there are, I believe, two even more abominable genres than this.
2. Café and public space music
To explain this, I need to go into a little more detail: you're sitting with a friend, some family members or a date on a café terrace, the sun is shining and there are about five nationalities of tourist sitting in a radius of ten metres from you. You're having a quiet lunch/dinner, or a decent chat about things, catching up on news, or simply having a family holiday while it's sunny. Then you hear, drifting across the muttering throngs from a café nearby, the distinct sound of an accordeon, a fiddle and sometimes a singer. The songs are well-known to you, but you just don't remember their names. That also annoys you. I'll name some so you can run a search on them: Ochi Chorniye, Cielito Lindo, Under the Bridges of Paris, That's Amore, Oh Du Lieber Augustin, My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean, La Vie En Rose, Beer Barrel Polka, Kalinka and Those Were The Days.
I know people who get great pleasure from the sounds of the accordeon, but there are surely more songs to play than that. Lady Kirsten also plays the accordeon and her repertoire is a hundred times broader than that of a streetside café busker. She can play songs from Sweden, Israel, Spain, Russia, Serbia, Belgium, Scotland, the USA, England, Wales and a lot of other countries.
The other public space I am referring to is the loud speaker found at railway stations, some pub-restaurants and shopping centres. The kind of music I am about to talk about requires me to prepare myself even to mention the name. That's why I paired it up with naff busking. The word is... euhm... (I feel like someone shy trying to explain to head of personnel I have haemorrhoids and need a new chair) is....
I'll do some more explaining first, to build myself up to it. That might help.
You're in the lobby of a three-star hotel in Kidderminster or Krefeld or Córdoba or Kaliningrad...
You're waiting for your spouse/son/daughter/grandma/secret lover, etc...
You're getting upset for no apparent reason...
Then you realise why. It's the utter bastardisation by re-timing (so-called jazzing-up) of songs you used to love, being slowly put through various stages of torture from limb removal to crucifixion via the codling grinder, turning them into musical monsters. The worst time of year for this contemptuous type of sound to reveal its hideous countenance is December and the weeks leading up to Christmas. I once heard Troïka from Prokofiev's magical Lieutenant Kijé Suite being stabbed to death by the sharpened knives of a trumpet player, a riff drummer and a supporting jazz orchestra. That made me cry. Another time, I heard Silent Night being bludgeoned by a group of musicians who made it sound like Mack the Knife. I stood still in disbelief for at least three minutes afterwards and could only speak again when I had had a whole night's sleep.
Big band is good. But not when it has to switch genres in order to make music.
Benny Goodman, Dizzy Gillespie, Glenn Miller, Joe Loss. All wonderful band leaders in their own right.
Tchaikovsky, Bach, Wagner, Mozart, Prokofiev, Händel. All great composers in their own right.
For the sake of public decency, don't mix the two.
1. Schlager
Utter drivel of the most evil kind. It defiles the entire subject of music and is not even worth the CD it has been burned on. Schlager is the rape of sound. It is the abomination of art, the whore of the radiowaves. There is no devil in Hell who could have thought up Schlager music. It must have been a human as humans are intently much, much more evil than all the demons in the Underworld.
I would define Schlager in several ways: the first, a frilly variety of saccharine sweet ballads sung by women of a certain age or girls who have never seen a male organ, but can hold a guitar whilst being driven along a mountain path on the back of a horse-drawn cart with their friends, Irmtraud, Poldi and Hannes. But it can also be sung by a group of camp, moustachioed Austrians in Mexican sombreros and billowing white shirts carrying musical instruments, pretending they're on their way to Mallorca for a holiday. Or it can be a prodigiously suntanned blond guy who looks 40 but is probably 20 years older than that and wearing a toupée, singing songs of his first love or of his departed girlfriend, gone off with someone new (or should that be young?), whilst he sits at home on a tacky, red geranium-infested Tyrolean balcony with commanding views of the Alps, but oddly featuring regular close-ups of the local village's friendly goat. Let us not forget the blurred camera lens for special watery-eyed effect.
Schlager is Be'elzebub's eardrum. It is blasphemous to even call it music. Schlager is the result of too much incestuousness in the countryside, where generations of farmers' sons have shagged their naïve, uneducated female cousins who think it's a remedy for acne, slipped away from the scene of the act and written a song about marriage, kids, and flowers to atone for their inexplicable desires, which then gets aired on German, Swiss or Austrian local radio and bought by hundreds of thousands of people who know no better.
I think it is a very good thing Schlager music is a post-war thing. Imagine if it had been around before... the events of 1939-1945 would have lasted a lot more briefly. I can see it now - instead of bombing the place to smithereens, we'd have all been terrorised by the sounds of Schlager music and come out with our hands above our heads - "you can switch it off now, we surrender!"
The bus driver who takes me to Luxembourg in the morning likes Schlager music. He is the one I spoke about in a previous article here, who can't smile for love nor money. I believe this to be because he has, for the whole of his life, thought the world was like a Schlager song, and every day that he wakes up realises it isn't. Schlager has turned him into a cantankerous, vindictive and miserable man with little to live for. I just hope he's not at the wheel of his bus when he decides to end it all.
Saturday 20 November 2010
The world in 2050 - part III, the scenarios
So, with the observations of the previous two articles in mind, how can the world look in 40 years?
If you're in the Western hemisphere, I think you have a good chance of finding the place quite different, possibly for the worse. The various scenarios are either chilling or hopeful, with little in the middle.
Scenario 1: China rises and rises
With this in mind, to see 2050, it would be wise to consider the world we live in today, as I said at the beginning. People are becoming less able to concentrate for long periods of time; the effects of the Internet, TV and computer games mean that most people do not really spend long thinking, really contemplating. Politics has become a bit of a soap opera in many democracies, and businesses are more powerful than at any time in history, some being classified in GDP listings alongside nations. China has had a part to play in this temporary, throw-away world we have permitted to come into being. For this reason, China may use this to its advantage, slowly infiltrating people's lives without them knowing, slowly affording itself the purchase of the odd bank here, the odd mining company there, an oil giant or two, plus some car companies, and gradually the world takes on a reddish hue.
Once various strategic firms have been purchased, the only way is up. The world will be a Chinese one. This is not an anomaly. The last three millennia have mostly been Chinese-dominated, with the exception of the 17th to 20th centuries, where the British, Americans and to some extent the Europeans have been in the ascendancy. Now things are going back the other way, and although most forecast this for the year 2050, I think it could be much, much sooner than that. If not already.
The Chinese could quite easily take advantage of the weak economies now at the mercy of the IMF, and choose to invest heavily in them. Imagine: the Chinese bail almost everyone out of the current mess, then start imposing their own policies and ideologies on everyone. I mean, there is no way the West would be able to further criticise China's dismal democratic record if they are the ones who put us back on track again. Furthermore, there would be reason to believe that businessmen and women favoured by the Chinese government would be sent to take control of those companies and banks bought or saved by them, and what then? If you dare criticise, insinuate, even look incredulously at their business policy or political stance, not only will you go out, but you may even be blackballed for various other positions elsewhere after.
Once this slow erosion of our rights has been noticed, only the people pigeonholed as conspiracy theorists, or those classed as slightly deluded will voice their opinions more strongly, but once it is too late, the rest may have understood.
Scenario II: China rises and falls
This is also a possibility, but could only happen if China makes some rash errors or gets too big for its own good. But how big can that be when you are a behemoth already, and have not even begun to execute your masterplan for world domination?
If China is to fail, then it will be a collective effort of everywhere else. And it will have to be done behind their backs - this may be impossible in the world as it is now, but once the Chinese have bought nearly everything that matters, own a sizeable chunk of the banks and have uncalculable mineral reserves to hand, then what would stop them? Only when the governments of the West have paid back their debts to China can they even think about tackling the re-establishment of democracy.
The Internet is currently politically neutral, but for how much longer? It may be a golden period for us, with free access to nearly everything, but with newspapers beginning to charge, with other outlets considering a priority list, it could go the way of US TV, which is full of advertising and only the good stuff is on pay-per-view. There is also nothing stopping China from influencing the future's media and broadcasting; allowing itself a self-congratulatory headline each day.
But there is an alternative.
An alternative so radical, it may not even work, but would be worth it just to keep us democratic: the governments of the Western world should consider having no truck whatsoever with China, keeping their hands free of debt to Asia and keeping it in the family, so to say. There could be an agreement where debt to each other is delayed so that debt to China can be the first repaid. Once that is out of the way, we can squabble amongst ourselves, but at least then we do not have the extra worry of having to do China's bidding.
A further way is that China could be the victim of its own success. Once, we dreamed that countries like Ireland and Spain were the Monaco and Switzerland of the future, but how wrong we were. Although I do not believe for one moment that China will be so complacent, I can see it taking some wrong decisions. Mainly, having too much going on at the same time. Empires always collapse in the end. The Chinese have learned from the Europeans that colonisation does not work as it causes rising anger in the places you colonised. The Chinese have also learned from the Americans and Russians that invasion wins you few friends and causes your expeditory departure from that place far more quickly. So they know now that the best way to conquer is to buy everything. In the corporate sector, where there are no political entities, no land borders, and where business pervades borders like tobacco smoke which does not remain solely in the smokers' area, the Chinese can make their mark where the Western powers failed.
We should not let this happen. However, considering the spineless leaders we have, I am sure they would sell their own grandmothers to make some money.
If you're in the Western hemisphere, I think you have a good chance of finding the place quite different, possibly for the worse. The various scenarios are either chilling or hopeful, with little in the middle.
Scenario 1: China rises and rises
With this in mind, to see 2050, it would be wise to consider the world we live in today, as I said at the beginning. People are becoming less able to concentrate for long periods of time; the effects of the Internet, TV and computer games mean that most people do not really spend long thinking, really contemplating. Politics has become a bit of a soap opera in many democracies, and businesses are more powerful than at any time in history, some being classified in GDP listings alongside nations. China has had a part to play in this temporary, throw-away world we have permitted to come into being. For this reason, China may use this to its advantage, slowly infiltrating people's lives without them knowing, slowly affording itself the purchase of the odd bank here, the odd mining company there, an oil giant or two, plus some car companies, and gradually the world takes on a reddish hue.
Once various strategic firms have been purchased, the only way is up. The world will be a Chinese one. This is not an anomaly. The last three millennia have mostly been Chinese-dominated, with the exception of the 17th to 20th centuries, where the British, Americans and to some extent the Europeans have been in the ascendancy. Now things are going back the other way, and although most forecast this for the year 2050, I think it could be much, much sooner than that. If not already.
The Chinese could quite easily take advantage of the weak economies now at the mercy of the IMF, and choose to invest heavily in them. Imagine: the Chinese bail almost everyone out of the current mess, then start imposing their own policies and ideologies on everyone. I mean, there is no way the West would be able to further criticise China's dismal democratic record if they are the ones who put us back on track again. Furthermore, there would be reason to believe that businessmen and women favoured by the Chinese government would be sent to take control of those companies and banks bought or saved by them, and what then? If you dare criticise, insinuate, even look incredulously at their business policy or political stance, not only will you go out, but you may even be blackballed for various other positions elsewhere after.
Once this slow erosion of our rights has been noticed, only the people pigeonholed as conspiracy theorists, or those classed as slightly deluded will voice their opinions more strongly, but once it is too late, the rest may have understood.
Scenario II: China rises and falls
This is also a possibility, but could only happen if China makes some rash errors or gets too big for its own good. But how big can that be when you are a behemoth already, and have not even begun to execute your masterplan for world domination?
If China is to fail, then it will be a collective effort of everywhere else. And it will have to be done behind their backs - this may be impossible in the world as it is now, but once the Chinese have bought nearly everything that matters, own a sizeable chunk of the banks and have uncalculable mineral reserves to hand, then what would stop them? Only when the governments of the West have paid back their debts to China can they even think about tackling the re-establishment of democracy.
The Internet is currently politically neutral, but for how much longer? It may be a golden period for us, with free access to nearly everything, but with newspapers beginning to charge, with other outlets considering a priority list, it could go the way of US TV, which is full of advertising and only the good stuff is on pay-per-view. There is also nothing stopping China from influencing the future's media and broadcasting; allowing itself a self-congratulatory headline each day.
But there is an alternative.
An alternative so radical, it may not even work, but would be worth it just to keep us democratic: the governments of the Western world should consider having no truck whatsoever with China, keeping their hands free of debt to Asia and keeping it in the family, so to say. There could be an agreement where debt to each other is delayed so that debt to China can be the first repaid. Once that is out of the way, we can squabble amongst ourselves, but at least then we do not have the extra worry of having to do China's bidding.
A further way is that China could be the victim of its own success. Once, we dreamed that countries like Ireland and Spain were the Monaco and Switzerland of the future, but how wrong we were. Although I do not believe for one moment that China will be so complacent, I can see it taking some wrong decisions. Mainly, having too much going on at the same time. Empires always collapse in the end. The Chinese have learned from the Europeans that colonisation does not work as it causes rising anger in the places you colonised. The Chinese have also learned from the Americans and Russians that invasion wins you few friends and causes your expeditory departure from that place far more quickly. So they know now that the best way to conquer is to buy everything. In the corporate sector, where there are no political entities, no land borders, and where business pervades borders like tobacco smoke which does not remain solely in the smokers' area, the Chinese can make their mark where the Western powers failed.
We should not let this happen. However, considering the spineless leaders we have, I am sure they would sell their own grandmothers to make some money.
Friday 12 November 2010
The world in 2050 - part II, the EU vs the USA vs China
When comparing Europe with the USA, the most obvious place to start would be with the military roles each side of the Atlantic plays in the world. The USA has had a long tradition of military intervention, and the EU has a great amount of nation-building expertise due to its colonialist past. You would think, therefore, that they were perfect for each other. No. Despite that, the USA has not really admitted that had Europe been given a greater say in its endeavours to establish nation states in the Middle East and central Asia, it might not be in the current situation of fighting on at least two fronts almost a decade on from "that" event. The USA has always deemed itself more capable than others in its military prowess, more prestigious in its powers to negotiate and more respected - or feared - in battle situations. This is far from the truth. As it happens, there is a chasm separating the ideals, purposes, abilities and capabilities of the military in Europe from that in the USA, and one of the basic differences is in intelligence. Both senses of the word.
In Europe, most military personnel is trained in warfare as well as peacetime skills, but those who sign up are also given an opportunity to gain a degree or qualification for after they have completed their service or if their careers are prematurely cut short (disability, illness, injury, etc.). In the USA, the majority of new members of the basic army are found at recruitment drives at supermarkets on week days. These are people who are already unemployed, sometimes long-term, often because they do not have any basic qualifications. They may have been deemed unemployable. In other words, I am not sure this is the sort of person you would give a gun to. Not all, of course. Many are career soldiers, naval officers and pilots, but a lot are going to give you a hard time in areas concerning discipline and approachability. I met some US Army personnel a while back and they seemed quite personable, if a little incapable of pulling a different face other than what I might call "haunted".
And in the other intelligence area, namely that of information gathering and execution, the USA has always been stubborn in accepting others' tip-offs and alarm-raising. But vice-versa seems to be working well, namely recently when a cargo plane from the Arabian Peninsula was found to have a package containing highly explosive material. The USA suffers from a superiority complex and in military affairs, its days as the world's only superpower are numbered. This is also due to its budget and operating costs. It is spending far too much time and money in two conflict zones in Asia and if a third theatre of action were to open, it would probably be incapable of coping.
For this reason, Europe needs to assert itself more on the military front. Its proposals to begin a proto-European military through British and French members is a start. But its intelligence and investigative skills could also benefit from a boost, especially considering it has the added bonus of being seen as a lot less aggressive than China and a lot less opinionated than the USA. Militarily, Europe could easily cut its field operations budget by joining forces, and at the same time developing its intelligence services. It can also show its credentials in nation-building and spreading democracy simply by listing what it has done to keep the EU's 21st-century member states from the wolves of dictatorship. Only 20 years ago, eleven of its new member states (the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania and the eastern part of Germany) were shaking off five decades of communist dictatorship. Prior to that, Spain, Portugal and Greece had lived under Franco, Salazar and the Colonels respectively in various autocratic fascist or military régimes. It is only thirteen countries, less than half its current membership, which have been free of dictators (the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, France, Austria, Malta, and to some extent Cyprus).
The EU is setting itself up as a benign semi-superpower, able to help in a crisis, but less willing to spend great wads of cash on US-style intervention. The US, however, is a superpower on the wane, and within the next ten years, will find itself in the position the UK was in when Margaret Thatcher swept to power: it will need to downsize and sell of a lot of its own assets to keep afloat. It will also need to take a step back and look at itself because unlike the British at the end of the Empire, the Americans will be a lot less keen on relinquishing their title as military masters of all they survey. China is waiting to take over a large amount of American property and business, having saved up enormous amounts of cash, and soon India will enter the race. A new competition is about to begin, where those two battle it out for supremacy. My money is on a democratic India siding with the EU, other large Commonwealth countries, Japan and to some extent the USA, and China with its own sphere of influence, probably including its own backyard (Vietnam, Myanmar, North Korea, the 'Stans) and parts of Africa, its newly-extended backyard.
I can see China and the USA going head-to-head in some areas where they most want to exert influence, and cancelling each other out. This is where the EU can step in. It needs to focus on its own game, and not be too much influenced by others' squabbles. The EU can save money by keeping out of the buying game China is playing, vacuuming up all the gold, silver and diamonds it can, as well as all the banks, service enterprises and factories. The USA will try to match it, but they should not either. Eventually China will get too fat and explode. What we have to do in Europe is keep playing our own game, try to remain neutral, indifferent even, and attempt to extricate ourselves from some of the more worrying political and business deals we made with outside entities to reduce our debt.
The EU needs to keep to its own agenda, needs to shine a light of hope in dark times, and be a guide for democracy-loving people everywhere. What it should not be doing is competing, trying to be top dog. It does not need to do this because it is above all that. And all the armies in the world do not mean you are the best. You are the best if your streets are safe, if your nature is well-tended and preserved, if your hospitals are efficient, if your people do not have the worry of poverty if they cannot find work, if your politicians are held accountable to the forces of justice and can be easily removed, if your industrial base is well-regulated and has a good reputation and finally if you can say what you please, go where you want and learn the truth from an actively inquisitive press and get a free education in schools which do not force you to believe in an ideological right or wrong. It mostly does well here, with some countries being exceptions proving the rule.
This is where Europe excels and where it needs to stay. Leave the posturing to the Americans, Chinese and other would-be dominators and Europe can get on with the serious business of liberty and equality.
In Europe, most military personnel is trained in warfare as well as peacetime skills, but those who sign up are also given an opportunity to gain a degree or qualification for after they have completed their service or if their careers are prematurely cut short (disability, illness, injury, etc.). In the USA, the majority of new members of the basic army are found at recruitment drives at supermarkets on week days. These are people who are already unemployed, sometimes long-term, often because they do not have any basic qualifications. They may have been deemed unemployable. In other words, I am not sure this is the sort of person you would give a gun to. Not all, of course. Many are career soldiers, naval officers and pilots, but a lot are going to give you a hard time in areas concerning discipline and approachability. I met some US Army personnel a while back and they seemed quite personable, if a little incapable of pulling a different face other than what I might call "haunted".
And in the other intelligence area, namely that of information gathering and execution, the USA has always been stubborn in accepting others' tip-offs and alarm-raising. But vice-versa seems to be working well, namely recently when a cargo plane from the Arabian Peninsula was found to have a package containing highly explosive material. The USA suffers from a superiority complex and in military affairs, its days as the world's only superpower are numbered. This is also due to its budget and operating costs. It is spending far too much time and money in two conflict zones in Asia and if a third theatre of action were to open, it would probably be incapable of coping.
For this reason, Europe needs to assert itself more on the military front. Its proposals to begin a proto-European military through British and French members is a start. But its intelligence and investigative skills could also benefit from a boost, especially considering it has the added bonus of being seen as a lot less aggressive than China and a lot less opinionated than the USA. Militarily, Europe could easily cut its field operations budget by joining forces, and at the same time developing its intelligence services. It can also show its credentials in nation-building and spreading democracy simply by listing what it has done to keep the EU's 21st-century member states from the wolves of dictatorship. Only 20 years ago, eleven of its new member states (the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania and the eastern part of Germany) were shaking off five decades of communist dictatorship. Prior to that, Spain, Portugal and Greece had lived under Franco, Salazar and the Colonels respectively in various autocratic fascist or military régimes. It is only thirteen countries, less than half its current membership, which have been free of dictators (the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, France, Austria, Malta, and to some extent Cyprus).
The EU is setting itself up as a benign semi-superpower, able to help in a crisis, but less willing to spend great wads of cash on US-style intervention. The US, however, is a superpower on the wane, and within the next ten years, will find itself in the position the UK was in when Margaret Thatcher swept to power: it will need to downsize and sell of a lot of its own assets to keep afloat. It will also need to take a step back and look at itself because unlike the British at the end of the Empire, the Americans will be a lot less keen on relinquishing their title as military masters of all they survey. China is waiting to take over a large amount of American property and business, having saved up enormous amounts of cash, and soon India will enter the race. A new competition is about to begin, where those two battle it out for supremacy. My money is on a democratic India siding with the EU, other large Commonwealth countries, Japan and to some extent the USA, and China with its own sphere of influence, probably including its own backyard (Vietnam, Myanmar, North Korea, the 'Stans) and parts of Africa, its newly-extended backyard.
I can see China and the USA going head-to-head in some areas where they most want to exert influence, and cancelling each other out. This is where the EU can step in. It needs to focus on its own game, and not be too much influenced by others' squabbles. The EU can save money by keeping out of the buying game China is playing, vacuuming up all the gold, silver and diamonds it can, as well as all the banks, service enterprises and factories. The USA will try to match it, but they should not either. Eventually China will get too fat and explode. What we have to do in Europe is keep playing our own game, try to remain neutral, indifferent even, and attempt to extricate ourselves from some of the more worrying political and business deals we made with outside entities to reduce our debt.
The EU needs to keep to its own agenda, needs to shine a light of hope in dark times, and be a guide for democracy-loving people everywhere. What it should not be doing is competing, trying to be top dog. It does not need to do this because it is above all that. And all the armies in the world do not mean you are the best. You are the best if your streets are safe, if your nature is well-tended and preserved, if your hospitals are efficient, if your people do not have the worry of poverty if they cannot find work, if your politicians are held accountable to the forces of justice and can be easily removed, if your industrial base is well-regulated and has a good reputation and finally if you can say what you please, go where you want and learn the truth from an actively inquisitive press and get a free education in schools which do not force you to believe in an ideological right or wrong. It mostly does well here, with some countries being exceptions proving the rule.
This is where Europe excels and where it needs to stay. Leave the posturing to the Americans, Chinese and other would-be dominators and Europe can get on with the serious business of liberty and equality.
Thursday 4 November 2010
The world in 2050 - part I, the EU vs China
What will the world be like in 40 years' time? Most historians agree with the Churchillian view, that to look at the future you need to look at the past. By then though, all of that future will have been the past. But maybe we can look ten to twenty years ahead, which might give us clues.
We live, undoubtedly, in the freest and most enlightened society on Earth. And I hope this remains so in the future. But our greatest problem is the rise of the Far East and especially China, with its ability to manoeuvre in the world without asking 27 sovereign countries for permission. China is ahead in Europe's former colonial backyard simply because it can. Democracy is being defeated, even embarrassingly, by China's decisive nature and guilt-free ability to do what is best for China.
If the EU is asked to help in the building of a bridge across a predator-infested river in Africa so children can get to the school on the other side, it will firstly send an EU delegation to assess the impact to nature, the human inhabitants and the economy. It will take its findings back to Brussels, where committees in the European Parliament will sit and discuss matters before this project finally appears on the to-do list, maybe a year, maybe three years later. It is then transferred to the respective European Commission Directorate General for planning and execution. By this time, China will have sent its own delegate, who simply shows up in the village, says "where do you want it?" and calls up some builders to get the job done. In return neither for money, nor for nothing, but for the minerals in the ground around the village.
China is, without regard for ethics or morals, simply acting like the world's rich uncle in order to gain a certain kudos in parts of the world where, when the time comes, their United Nations vote could be crucial. On top of this, it is acting like a drug pusher, in that it makes promises to return with more fixes for the locals. But fixes are just that. Temporary. And no amount of posturing will hide the simple fact that its infrastructure is crumbling because of the temporariness of the structures China builds, and the shoddy workmanship it turns blind eyes to will mean that when the Europeans come back to that village in Africa, they should take a good look at the Chinese bridge, check for subsidance and crumbling, pull it down and build its own.
China is developing a "quick fix" economy for all. You're in a foreign city for a week and you packed one too few shirts? Pop down to the local department store and pick a Chinese one up for about 7€. You won't use it much more after, because the Chinese produce shirts that are too short, where the lowest button is about your navel area and it barely fits into your trousers. There was an article in a UK paper a few years ago about Christmas coming in on a mile-long freight ship from China, that we were now all subject to buying things Chinese. How much of it remains after two years is anyone's guess, but the simple matter is that China will never outdo the status of "Workshop of the World" simply because it relies on you to throw their stuff away and buy another one from the same maker. Workshop of the World implies that your material is so trustworthy you would not buy from anyone else, even if theirs was cheaper. That is why "Made in Germany" or "Made in England" will always have an extra advantage. It is the difference between an antique table of solid oak and a plastic-surfaced, metal-legged screw-down table with a loose fitting. The former you find in a top European restaurant, the latter in a Chinese takeaway.
What does the future hold, therefore, for China? I think it has learned from the Gorbachev break-up of the Soviet Union and does not want this to happen to it. The Chinese are busy promoting real estate in outer-lying cities in China to attract Han Chinese there, further cementing China's grip on its recent acquisitions, especially Tibet, Yunnan, Qinghai and Xinjiang. It is rapidly consolidating its status as polluter-in-chief, and will soon overtake the USA as largest in everything. But the one thing it does not have on its side is affection in the hearts of other countries in the world and this cannot change while China is still seen as a sinister and work-obsessed political entity.
All Europe has to do to gain the momentum is stay the same, because soon its fusty, clunking administrative machinery with its protracted overseas development projects will be seen as a breath of fresh air in comparison to the soulless efficiency, false smiles and black business suits accompanying the Chinese wherever they go.
______________________________________________________
The simple answer to the question, "where will China be in 2050?" is that it could go one of two ways.
Either:
It could sink in a treacherous sea of dissatisfaction in its inability to produce proper material and act in an ethical and trustworthy manner, causing buyers, investors and bankers to pull out, and a nasty rise in nationalistic indignation at feeling rejected by the rest of the world. This could have the knock-on effect of galvanising the Chinese against the rest of the world or causing the split-up of its various autonomous regions, over which it has extended its wide-reaching tentacles, from the main body. By the time 2050 comes, China could be half the size in territory, and a quarter of the size in stature.
Or:
It could start the slow process towards allowing human emotion and dignity to be given space alongside work and dump its cosying up to other mean-spirited dictatorships (Zimbabwe, Myanmar) around the world. It could admit to its mistakes of allowing mass profiteering and racketeering to take a leading role in its colonisation of Africa, and start clearing up its own mess, instead of leaving that to the EU and the USA and their allies. It could stop stealing ideas from the EU and the USA and adapting them for its own purposes. It could clean up its fuel burning, whether associated with its addiction to coal or its petrol-guzzling cars. It would take its place as a model reformed nation, a shining beacon to all those nasty little dictatorships in central Asia and Africa.
But, unfortunately, neither is likely to happen. China is likely to get more and more competitive, causing other area of the world to realise the secret to winning this particularly nasty war is to become just as flexible and decisive as China. All I can see is a slow erosion of workers' rights in the EU and USA and a rise in the amount of Chinese-led initiatives. And whilst the EU and the USA are busy spending literally billions keeping terrorists at bay in central Asia and eastern Africa, China's approach is rather than to put sanctions on those countries, or even invade them, costing a lot of money and even more in lives, China just hangs a few diamond-encrusted carrots and wait until they bite.
Should the EU and USA start doing this? It is hard to say, but for all the ethical politics the EU and USA spread is being quite simply negated, even cancelled out, by China's simple interventions. It is the equivalent of a drug pusher looking for a few gophers. Find the bad boys in the school playground ready to earn a bit of cash for some thrills, and he has an inexhaustible supply of mercenaries. I think, for all the good it has been doing in recent years, the EU is currently losing the battle to keep itself afloat, even asking China for assistance in some cases.
I personally think the EU will slowly turn away from social democracy and become big in government edicts, bigger in industrial labour, smaller in intellectual workpower, smaller in military intervention. It needs to, in order to stay in the game. But it will have to go through several enormous periods of civil unrest to achieve it. China, on the other hand, is the one who can afford to stay the same.
We live, undoubtedly, in the freest and most enlightened society on Earth. And I hope this remains so in the future. But our greatest problem is the rise of the Far East and especially China, with its ability to manoeuvre in the world without asking 27 sovereign countries for permission. China is ahead in Europe's former colonial backyard simply because it can. Democracy is being defeated, even embarrassingly, by China's decisive nature and guilt-free ability to do what is best for China.
If the EU is asked to help in the building of a bridge across a predator-infested river in Africa so children can get to the school on the other side, it will firstly send an EU delegation to assess the impact to nature, the human inhabitants and the economy. It will take its findings back to Brussels, where committees in the European Parliament will sit and discuss matters before this project finally appears on the to-do list, maybe a year, maybe three years later. It is then transferred to the respective European Commission Directorate General for planning and execution. By this time, China will have sent its own delegate, who simply shows up in the village, says "where do you want it?" and calls up some builders to get the job done. In return neither for money, nor for nothing, but for the minerals in the ground around the village.
China is, without regard for ethics or morals, simply acting like the world's rich uncle in order to gain a certain kudos in parts of the world where, when the time comes, their United Nations vote could be crucial. On top of this, it is acting like a drug pusher, in that it makes promises to return with more fixes for the locals. But fixes are just that. Temporary. And no amount of posturing will hide the simple fact that its infrastructure is crumbling because of the temporariness of the structures China builds, and the shoddy workmanship it turns blind eyes to will mean that when the Europeans come back to that village in Africa, they should take a good look at the Chinese bridge, check for subsidance and crumbling, pull it down and build its own.
China is developing a "quick fix" economy for all. You're in a foreign city for a week and you packed one too few shirts? Pop down to the local department store and pick a Chinese one up for about 7€. You won't use it much more after, because the Chinese produce shirts that are too short, where the lowest button is about your navel area and it barely fits into your trousers. There was an article in a UK paper a few years ago about Christmas coming in on a mile-long freight ship from China, that we were now all subject to buying things Chinese. How much of it remains after two years is anyone's guess, but the simple matter is that China will never outdo the status of "Workshop of the World" simply because it relies on you to throw their stuff away and buy another one from the same maker. Workshop of the World implies that your material is so trustworthy you would not buy from anyone else, even if theirs was cheaper. That is why "Made in Germany" or "Made in England" will always have an extra advantage. It is the difference between an antique table of solid oak and a plastic-surfaced, metal-legged screw-down table with a loose fitting. The former you find in a top European restaurant, the latter in a Chinese takeaway.
What does the future hold, therefore, for China? I think it has learned from the Gorbachev break-up of the Soviet Union and does not want this to happen to it. The Chinese are busy promoting real estate in outer-lying cities in China to attract Han Chinese there, further cementing China's grip on its recent acquisitions, especially Tibet, Yunnan, Qinghai and Xinjiang. It is rapidly consolidating its status as polluter-in-chief, and will soon overtake the USA as largest in everything. But the one thing it does not have on its side is affection in the hearts of other countries in the world and this cannot change while China is still seen as a sinister and work-obsessed political entity.
All Europe has to do to gain the momentum is stay the same, because soon its fusty, clunking administrative machinery with its protracted overseas development projects will be seen as a breath of fresh air in comparison to the soulless efficiency, false smiles and black business suits accompanying the Chinese wherever they go.
______________________________________________________
The simple answer to the question, "where will China be in 2050?" is that it could go one of two ways.
Either:
It could sink in a treacherous sea of dissatisfaction in its inability to produce proper material and act in an ethical and trustworthy manner, causing buyers, investors and bankers to pull out, and a nasty rise in nationalistic indignation at feeling rejected by the rest of the world. This could have the knock-on effect of galvanising the Chinese against the rest of the world or causing the split-up of its various autonomous regions, over which it has extended its wide-reaching tentacles, from the main body. By the time 2050 comes, China could be half the size in territory, and a quarter of the size in stature.
Or:
It could start the slow process towards allowing human emotion and dignity to be given space alongside work and dump its cosying up to other mean-spirited dictatorships (Zimbabwe, Myanmar) around the world. It could admit to its mistakes of allowing mass profiteering and racketeering to take a leading role in its colonisation of Africa, and start clearing up its own mess, instead of leaving that to the EU and the USA and their allies. It could stop stealing ideas from the EU and the USA and adapting them for its own purposes. It could clean up its fuel burning, whether associated with its addiction to coal or its petrol-guzzling cars. It would take its place as a model reformed nation, a shining beacon to all those nasty little dictatorships in central Asia and Africa.
But, unfortunately, neither is likely to happen. China is likely to get more and more competitive, causing other area of the world to realise the secret to winning this particularly nasty war is to become just as flexible and decisive as China. All I can see is a slow erosion of workers' rights in the EU and USA and a rise in the amount of Chinese-led initiatives. And whilst the EU and the USA are busy spending literally billions keeping terrorists at bay in central Asia and eastern Africa, China's approach is rather than to put sanctions on those countries, or even invade them, costing a lot of money and even more in lives, China just hangs a few diamond-encrusted carrots and wait until they bite.
Should the EU and USA start doing this? It is hard to say, but for all the ethical politics the EU and USA spread is being quite simply negated, even cancelled out, by China's simple interventions. It is the equivalent of a drug pusher looking for a few gophers. Find the bad boys in the school playground ready to earn a bit of cash for some thrills, and he has an inexhaustible supply of mercenaries. I think, for all the good it has been doing in recent years, the EU is currently losing the battle to keep itself afloat, even asking China for assistance in some cases.
I personally think the EU will slowly turn away from social democracy and become big in government edicts, bigger in industrial labour, smaller in intellectual workpower, smaller in military intervention. It needs to, in order to stay in the game. But it will have to go through several enormous periods of civil unrest to achieve it. China, on the other hand, is the one who can afford to stay the same.
Thursday 28 October 2010
Keeping occupied
So, this time last year, Lady Kirsten and I decided to go house-hunting. We wanted to stay in the area but I wanted an easier ride to work in the morning. In Wiltingen, it took me 90 minutes to get to work and 2 hours to come home, which i didn't mind, considering I don't go every day and we lived in a water mill in the middle of some stunning countryside. Moving was always going to be hard, considering the nature of the place we lived in, so wherever we went would really have to be tip-top.
We didn't have long to wait. I ran a search on the main property website for the area, and found an absolute beauty in Saarburg. It was the very first place we viewed in the late autumn and we would compare it against any other property we looked at thereafter.
It was on a fairly steep incline, but the views over the valley and surrounding hills was memorable, and the roofed terrace (seen above on the right of the house) was perfect to survey the natural landscape all around.
Building a garden shed:
Lady Kirsten deciphering the instructions for putting on the roof. The hardest part about building the shed was shifting the soil beneath to level off the ground. I filled the hole with fine gravel to keep it dry.
Old and new:
Deer in the garden:
We are frequently visited by all sorts of wild animals, including a trio of deer one Sunday morning. I spent about 45 minutes admiring them in our and next door's gardens, munching on the grass. My admiration turned a little sour when I went outside later on in the day and found they had eaten literally every living and growing thing in the garden. They were great substitutes for my hedge trimmers but they could have stopped when they got to the worcesterberry, raspberry and blackberry plants...
Still, it has solved one problem for me: I know what I'll be cooking for dinner on 25th December now.
We didn't have long to wait. I ran a search on the main property website for the area, and found an absolute beauty in Saarburg. It was the very first place we viewed in the late autumn and we would compare it against any other property we looked at thereafter.
It was on a fairly steep incline, but the views over the valley and surrounding hills was memorable, and the roofed terrace (seen above on the right of the house) was perfect to survey the natural landscape all around.The downside was that even though it bordered on the forest, there were some busy roads nearby, including a spaghetti-style slip-road system that is soon to be adapted, and the planned building of a supermarket only a minute away, with all the palaver of construction and destruction. However, the bus to Luxembourg leaves from only 200 metres from the front door.
The most poignant thing about the house was that it had a certain dignified air, as if to say "like me or loathe me, this is what you get". And considering its most advantageous selling price, there were no major renovation issues, which baffled me and still leaves me wondering why, come the following spring, it was still on the market. Looking at other houses of various shapes and sizes in the meantime, nothing compared to that one, and so we put in a bid for it. It was the best decision we made.
On the top floor are four light and spacious bedrooms, a bathroom and a hallway, on the upper ground floor is a huge kitchen, a large dining room, a living room and a smaller room doing nothing, so we converted it into a library. The ground floor is a second residence, which helps to pay a large chunk of our mortgage, and behind that, built into the land, is a cellar large enough to use it for washing clothes, storing a huge amount of boxes and housing the gardening equipment until I built a garden shed.
The roofed terrace is a delightful place to sit and we decked it out with hanging baskets filled with long-lasting plants. We added some further plants and even tomatoes and peppers, which produced a small but rewarding yield in September. The main work was in the garden and upper meadow, where there is a huge empty space, just waiting to be landscaped. This will not happen overnight, but I wanted to get things going this summer and I built a shed (as I mentioned), although not one of those you hammer the panels together, like there is already in the garden (see photo below), but rather a cabin-style shed where you bang in the planks so they overlap. It may take longer, but it is a satisfactory feeling to know you built it yourself. I had to shift a lot of earth, as the incline of the hill would have not been a wise place to build foundations. With that soil, I made a heather rockery and kitchen garden.
We hope to stay here for many years.
Uphill:
A balloon passes overhead. Our nut trees (right of photo) provided the local deer with a huge Sunday breakfast one morning in October.
Building a garden shed:
Lady Kirsten deciphering the instructions for putting on the roof. The hardest part about building the shed was shifting the soil beneath to level off the ground. I filled the hole with fine gravel to keep it dry.
Taking a short break:
Me, discussing a shisha break with Iman, our renter. As an Iranian descendent, he has access to some of the finest flavoured shisha tobaccoes in Germany.
The completed shed:
Roof on, wood stained and heather rockery planted, I built a bird house with the remaining pieces of plank. It has become a focal point of our cats' entertainment. I still need to affix the guttering to the shed and place the blue barrels below to provide water for the plants come the spring.
Old and new:
The old shed will be sawn up and used to heat us up in midwinter. In its place will come a pergola and seating area for us to relax with a good book, some cheese, wine and bread. The grass area between the heather rockery and the wheel barrow will become a terrace next year.
Deer in the garden:
We are frequently visited by all sorts of wild animals, including a trio of deer one Sunday morning. I spent about 45 minutes admiring them in our and next door's gardens, munching on the grass. My admiration turned a little sour when I went outside later on in the day and found they had eaten literally every living and growing thing in the garden. They were great substitutes for my hedge trimmers but they could have stopped when they got to the worcesterberry, raspberry and blackberry plants...
Still, it has solved one problem for me: I know what I'll be cooking for dinner on 25th December now.
Thursday 21 October 2010
The bus is a very good advert for the car
Honestly. You try your whole life conscientiously avoiding learning to drive, to the extent that people think you're poor, that in the end you start questioning if it is worth it...
When Lady Kirsten and I lived in Leuven, public transport was pretty OK. Not ideal, and often late, Belgian buses were often the only effective way of moving around the city. The trains are also pretty comfortable, although unreliable.
In our corner of Germany, I must say, the trains will work almost to the second, even in the coldest of snowy winters to the extent that you dare not be late. My criticism of them though is a valid one. They are not very frequent. Punctual, but rare. Efficient, but scarce. Clean, fast, even cheap. But if you miss one, it would be quicker to go back to your house and fetch your bicycle.
When we moved to Saarburg, it was great, because I could step outside, walk 200 metres (not even that) and jump on the bus straight to Luxembourg. It drops me about 5 minutes from the European Court of Justice and the Jean Monnet Commission building, two of the buildings I work in, although if I need to go to the European Parliament or Commission training building, I still have to get another bus. And it is this bus where the problems start. The people hanging out at bus stops have little or no sense of community spirit. They will get on the bus before everyone has got off and make sure they get the best seats. These buses are virtually empty and yet they are acting like it's the last bus from Armageddon.
The worst thing in Luxembourg is that many bus lines are so frequent that there might be another one right behind, similarly empty. Luxembourg's bus travellers don't acknowledge that probability though, and often make the experience so unattractive that you imagine you'd like to be sitting in the passenger seat of a ripoff taxi, which is the norm in Luxembourg. Although this is not the case every time.
But the bus taking me from Saarburg to Luxembourg is not squalid. Quite the opposite, but here lies a further, paradoxical complication. It is a luxury coach, with one of the most scenic routes in the world. It starts off in the Saar Valley where we are, rising up the steep forested hills to the open moors which separate the Saar from the Mosel, taking in the windswept beauty of the countryside around Merzkirchen before we plummet into the Mosel valley, crossing the frontier in some exquisite vineyard country, then rising up to meet the motorway into Kirchberg and Luxembourg City.
However, there are a few difficulties here, namely one of the drivers. He seems to think that everyone is an abstract object. When I tell him which stop I wish to get off at, he looks at me as if I have just said something philosophical and incomprehensible. When passengers buy their monthly ticket, he just takes our money and says nothing before handing it over, as though we are not interactive instruments capable of communicating on his wavelength. He does little to make us happy and you can never rely on him for a favour. I get on the bus at its second stop.
But there is an even more pressing problem here: the passengers. The vast majority are OK, but I sense that as they are from the country, they are not used to strangers taking their bus. So it came as a shock when I got on the bus and had the audacity to ask the woman who always sits at the front if she could move her light work bag for me to sit down. She huffed and puffed before mumbling something incomprehensible and thrusting her bag on the floor. I mean, she doesn't have a rental contract on that particular double-seat, and I need it more than her - she's so small, she could easily sit further back. Needless to say, she has not said a word to me since. There is a guy with extra long legs who deserves it much more than she does. Furthermore, that place is one of only three spots on the bus where I can put my work bag with all my books in it without taking up a seat which another passenger might need - it has extra room for luggage. One of the other two, just behind the middle door, is occupied by an enormous woman who needs two spaces anyway, and the last place is at the back where there is no light to read my book.
Opposite her, behind the driver, there is a further possibility, but the guy with long legs sits there when this other woman I mentioned steals his spot. The 157 bus from Saarburg to Luxembourg is full of little political quirks like this. My theory is these people are middle-class, and want to feel rewarded for leaving their cars at home. They feel they are owed a prize for being so green. The woman at the front obviously drives a car and treats it, like the rest of those car-driving individualists, like a cocoon, a four-wheeled haven in which she can block out those irritating other people who seem to be in her way. She should go back to the car, if you ask me.
When Lady Kirsten and I lived in Leuven, public transport was pretty OK. Not ideal, and often late, Belgian buses were often the only effective way of moving around the city. The trains are also pretty comfortable, although unreliable.
In our corner of Germany, I must say, the trains will work almost to the second, even in the coldest of snowy winters to the extent that you dare not be late. My criticism of them though is a valid one. They are not very frequent. Punctual, but rare. Efficient, but scarce. Clean, fast, even cheap. But if you miss one, it would be quicker to go back to your house and fetch your bicycle.
When we moved to Saarburg, it was great, because I could step outside, walk 200 metres (not even that) and jump on the bus straight to Luxembourg. It drops me about 5 minutes from the European Court of Justice and the Jean Monnet Commission building, two of the buildings I work in, although if I need to go to the European Parliament or Commission training building, I still have to get another bus. And it is this bus where the problems start. The people hanging out at bus stops have little or no sense of community spirit. They will get on the bus before everyone has got off and make sure they get the best seats. These buses are virtually empty and yet they are acting like it's the last bus from Armageddon.
The worst thing in Luxembourg is that many bus lines are so frequent that there might be another one right behind, similarly empty. Luxembourg's bus travellers don't acknowledge that probability though, and often make the experience so unattractive that you imagine you'd like to be sitting in the passenger seat of a ripoff taxi, which is the norm in Luxembourg. Although this is not the case every time.
But the bus taking me from Saarburg to Luxembourg is not squalid. Quite the opposite, but here lies a further, paradoxical complication. It is a luxury coach, with one of the most scenic routes in the world. It starts off in the Saar Valley where we are, rising up the steep forested hills to the open moors which separate the Saar from the Mosel, taking in the windswept beauty of the countryside around Merzkirchen before we plummet into the Mosel valley, crossing the frontier in some exquisite vineyard country, then rising up to meet the motorway into Kirchberg and Luxembourg City.
However, there are a few difficulties here, namely one of the drivers. He seems to think that everyone is an abstract object. When I tell him which stop I wish to get off at, he looks at me as if I have just said something philosophical and incomprehensible. When passengers buy their monthly ticket, he just takes our money and says nothing before handing it over, as though we are not interactive instruments capable of communicating on his wavelength. He does little to make us happy and you can never rely on him for a favour. I get on the bus at its second stop.
But there is an even more pressing problem here: the passengers. The vast majority are OK, but I sense that as they are from the country, they are not used to strangers taking their bus. So it came as a shock when I got on the bus and had the audacity to ask the woman who always sits at the front if she could move her light work bag for me to sit down. She huffed and puffed before mumbling something incomprehensible and thrusting her bag on the floor. I mean, she doesn't have a rental contract on that particular double-seat, and I need it more than her - she's so small, she could easily sit further back. Needless to say, she has not said a word to me since. There is a guy with extra long legs who deserves it much more than she does. Furthermore, that place is one of only three spots on the bus where I can put my work bag with all my books in it without taking up a seat which another passenger might need - it has extra room for luggage. One of the other two, just behind the middle door, is occupied by an enormous woman who needs two spaces anyway, and the last place is at the back where there is no light to read my book.
Opposite her, behind the driver, there is a further possibility, but the guy with long legs sits there when this other woman I mentioned steals his spot. The 157 bus from Saarburg to Luxembourg is full of little political quirks like this. My theory is these people are middle-class, and want to feel rewarded for leaving their cars at home. They feel they are owed a prize for being so green. The woman at the front obviously drives a car and treats it, like the rest of those car-driving individualists, like a cocoon, a four-wheeled haven in which she can block out those irritating other people who seem to be in her way. She should go back to the car, if you ask me.
Friday 15 October 2010
A time for heroes - Chilean miners and Syrian bears
I was, like a lot of people, keeping an eye on the TV news this week as the 33 miners trapped underground made their escape from a cruel death deep in the Chilean earth, to become (inter)national heroes. Many of them will never have to work again, dining off the book deals and TV, newspaper or magazine features which will already be being worked out.
The BBC was criticised by the Daily Mail for sending 25 staff to cover the event, pushing it to cut down on their reporting budgets for the G20 and Oscars. Well good, I say. There has been so much bad news recently that I for one was overjoyed to tune in and watch the historic moment those men rose to the surface like modern-day Lazaruses (or is it Lazari?), to be greeted by close family members and the odd skeleton in the cupboard. The saga of Yonni Barrios's love life was gripping enough to permit myself to stay up a little later than normal to see his reaction when he climbed out of the capsule, which will one day be hoisted up in the Chilean National Museum. I am not normally a gossip reader but this was different.
It is every man's dream to be a hero one day. For me, the real heroes of this story were the Chilean military personnel, who dreamed up the scheme to drop a capsule down there, put it together along with a lift mechanism and drill out a hole, completing the task as quickly as five weeks ahead of schedule.
But I would like to bring up the truly remarkable story of an unsung war hero called Private Wojciech or Wojtek, enlisted in the Polish 2nd Army Corps, who supported his comrades across the battlefields of the Middle East, northern Africa and southern Italy in the later stages of World War 2. Remarkable because Wojtek was a bear.
In the middle of the war, a Persian boy came across an orphaned bear cub. In the nearby town of Hamadan in Iran, some Polish soldiers were stationed and the boy agreed to sell the bear to them for a couple of days' food. Initially, the bear was fed on condensed milk from a disused vodka bottle as he was still less than one year old. His benign character and playful nature soon won the hearts of the soldiers, becoming a celebrity even to neighbouring garrisons and local people.
He picked up human habits, like smoking and drinking (he loved nothing more than a good beer) although his cigarette consumption still proved he was not totally human as he ate them too. He was fed on sweet produce and slept with the men in their dormitories. When the company moved location, Wojtek went with them in a transport container, and he went through a lot of places - Iraq, Palestine, Egypt and Italy.
According to one account, the army was forbidden from having live mascots, so his company's commanding officers, in that most Polish of ways to find a solution, enlisted him officially in the Polish army, being given the rank of Private. His finest moment came at the horror that was Monte Cassino, when he famously carried crates of ammunition shells for his comrades, not dropping a single one.
His active role was brought to the attention of senior command and it allowed Wojtek's company, then called the 22nd Transport Company to use a bear carrying a shell as its official emblem. His main role though was as a morale booster, and more importantly friend to the soldiers, at once replacing their families, wives, girlfriends and mates back home. He used to wrestle with the soldiers and often made a fool of himself which caused great mirth amongst the men. He wasn't just any old bear though, as he even managed to chase out an enemy spy. Being nearly two metres high and weighing two-and-a-half times that of an average man may have helped, but it shows just how close some members of the animal kingdom can be to us if given the chance.
At the end of the war, the company, bear included, was based near the Berwickshire town of Hutton. Wojtek's final journey was to a specially-built enclosure at Edinburgh Zoo, where he lived out his final days in well-earned retirement. Aileen Orr, the granddaughter of one of the Polish soldiers, visited the zoo one day with a Polish friend. When Wojtek heard her speaking Polish, he waved to them both, causing Aileen to have a life-long fascination for him. She wrote a book entitled "Wojtek the Bear: Polish War Hero" and along with the Cardinal of Edinburgh, the Lord Provost and the former governor of Edinburgh Castle, she has been campaigining to have a statue put up in the city in memory of this most unusual of war heroes. It will also be a memorial in recognition of the enormously important Polish contribution to the Allied victory.
Wojtek was a much-loved resident of Edinburgh Zoo right up until his death in December 1963.
He wanted for nothing and was looked after by an ex-soldier. Discussions are taking place about where in Edinburgh to erect his statue.
Saturday 2 October 2010
What is the greatest nation in the world?
What is the best country in the world?
Surveys are made by newspapers and magazines on the subject. TV documentaries are broadcast showing people's opinions. Newsweek even put out a thirty-page spread about it. But these types of surveys don't talk about the real question: what is the greatest country in the world?
Firstly we need some criteria. So we must look at the country's history - what is the point of a greatest country without a full story behind it? Then we should look at its people, who will of course have a collective memory, a rough stereotypical peculiarity and a thriving culture, all shaped by its history. Finally, we should look at its present. How is it now? Is it a successful nation or just plodding along? Are there many things to ascribe greatness to it in the present day?
So, let's look at the candidates:
1. France
History - Solid beginnings, lost their way when dealing with the monarchy. Replaced kings (beheaded) with the same kind of thing but not (always) born in a palace (see here). Got ever so tetchy about being only the second or third largest empire in the 19th century and was doubly upset by being invaded in the mid-20th and having to be rescued by their old rivals. Twice.
People stereotype - food, strikes, attitude and hygiene issues. Mainly socialist in public and conservative in private. Good films, bad TV. Most of it summed up by this man here.
How now? - see here.
Chances of winning accolade: - I won't be hanging out the Tricolor any time soon...
2. The USA
History - Completely missed out on the Renaissance due to not yet existing. Once established, went around charging other countries extortionate fees for rescuing them from Nazism and Communism before electing a series of baboons as leaders and invading a host of independent nations if they had differing views to those held by their chief monkey. The whole country is held together by glossy magazine celebrities.
People stereotype - Gullible, trigger-happy religious fanatics with a penchant for only seeing the world in black or white. Four legs good, two legs bad, size also matters here.
How now? - Most have no idea of the difference between what's right and what saves a few bucksworth of tax per year.
Chances of winning accolade - No chance, unless they ban oil drilling and propping up despotic régimes, renounce their addiction to money and put out a decent cricketing team.
3. China
History - Despite inventing a whole load of clever technical stuff whilst we Europeans were still swinging about in trees, lost the plot fairly early on through obsession with self-image and pageant, getting by with a vague change in the standard of civilisation each century until the mid-20th century, when after overthrowing four thousand years of Empire, the country was set back yet another thousand years by misguided ideologists who liked to take whole crowds for long walks. Only in the 21st century have they reached the point where they have to share the status of biggest economy in the world, but in the leagues of spreading human indignity and suffering, lack of care for the environment and lack of morals will always remain first. And considering this planet contains such barbaric places as Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea, that takes some beating. Came of age at their Olympic Games in 2008, which were big on impressive technicalities and tiny on heart.
People stereotype - Don't ask - you'll get the same answer: "we're all happy and we love our country. And weren't the Olympics fantastic?" Mmmyesss.... Although if you turned the corner in Beijing, you wouldn't have known they were taking place.
How now? - Busy buying up minerals to sell to us when we run out, cosying up to dictators who can provide the elite classes with wealth beyond even Westerners' dreams, and destroying whole swathes of their own countryside with grand architectural projects to "civilise" their rural population.
Chances - About as slim as my chances of becoming next Pope. Will maybe be the biggest in everything one day not so far in the future, but never, ever the best. Ever.
4. Germany
History - Feuding princes and lords set about expansion in Europe quite early, developing a penchant for it. Did it every few decades or so. Country oddly disunited until the 19th century when someone had the brilliant idea of putting it together politically. A certain indiscretion in the middle of the 20th century sent this country's candidature to the back of the queue (except China) but its modern-day image is very good and continually rising.
People stereotype - Either über-efficient, über-capable and always blasting opponents off the football pitch, or sausage-munching, beer-swilling Lederhosen-wearing yodelers who drive at excessive speeds on Autobahns in their still German-owned cars.
How now? - A country at ease with itself these days, although still having trouble with foreigners (mainly French politicians and Austrian or Dutch maverick speakers), but still capable of impressing us with its stable economy and smaller but still thriving industrial base. "Made in Germany" still means something.
Chances - Would have been real contenders but for a slight misunderstanding of the territorial rules of the game of football in the mid-20th century, namely the game is supposed to remain on the same pitch.
5. The UK
History - Got invaded once by some angry Norman guy and didn't really enjoy the experience. Spent the next thousand years atoning for it by going off elsewhere so when invasion almost happened again, traded in their status of largest empire to keep their independence, only to immediately trade it in again for an equal share in a huge political pie with the very people they had only recently tried to fight off. Very dodgy infrastructure due to being the oldest industrialised nation. Has a language everyone speaks badly, and a reputation for the exportation of awful reality TV.
People stereotype - Badly dressed, or over-dressed, tea-drinking, umbrella-obsessed, aridly sober or gutter-crawlingly drunk, seagoing individuals who invent amazing stuff in sheds and queue up for the chance to get on overcrowded trains.
How now? - Refreshingly different to everyone else, although this may be its problem. The country was in the process of reinventing itself through the power of taking away from the people its centuries-old faithfulness to civil liberties, replacing the friendly policeman with a camera on every building. That was, until the 2010 election, whose outcome fortunately may have caused the reversal of this disturbing trend. Still the benchmark when it comes to innovation and invention (if the Chinese don't steal it and patent it).
Chances - Strongest contender so far, and not because I'm one of them.
But..........
I'd like to consider a dark horse in this contest, a country which if it were human you'd probably not notice, sitting there in its quiet corner being busily occupied with the continent's plumbing and electricity. This contender is entrant number
6. Poland
History - After driving out the Hungarians, the Germans, the Austrians, the Russians, the French, the Prussians and even the mighty Swedes over centuries and centuries of invasion from north, south, east and west, this prized strategic area of land had a powerful influence on early democracy. It was the object of the desires of the leader of our candidate number 4 in the middle of the 20th century. After suffering from the most abysmal atrocities it was saved by a neighbouring country which then occupied it for the next 45 years, subjecting it to humiliating acts of subservience from time to time. This did not stop the people from rising up against them in brave acts of defiance. Was quickly accepted into the EU after the fall of its occupiers, now one of the most respected members of its new family of nations, contributing a compatriot to be European Parliament President. Due to its people's practical skills, is well on the way to being the most needed nationality in Europe.
People stereotype - People speak a fairytale language full of tricky fricatives and nasal vowels, but "you have a leaky tap? No problem, my cousin Wojciech will fix it for you for a reasonable price and a happy smile on his face." For a nation that has endured so much, the fact they have such a happy attitude and a proper sense of community still, signifies something much deeper than what lies on the surface.
How now? - Although still has some catching up to do, the fact it has survived its centuries of invasion and reinvasion, occupation and destruction, it is a country at peace with itself. Despite not having many motorways, has some of the best driving roads in the world and gives ordinary visitors the kind of welcome reserved for princes elsewhere.
Chances - Maybe, just maybe...
I can't think of any other decent contenders.
Surveys are made by newspapers and magazines on the subject. TV documentaries are broadcast showing people's opinions. Newsweek even put out a thirty-page spread about it. But these types of surveys don't talk about the real question: what is the greatest country in the world?
Firstly we need some criteria. So we must look at the country's history - what is the point of a greatest country without a full story behind it? Then we should look at its people, who will of course have a collective memory, a rough stereotypical peculiarity and a thriving culture, all shaped by its history. Finally, we should look at its present. How is it now? Is it a successful nation or just plodding along? Are there many things to ascribe greatness to it in the present day?
So, let's look at the candidates:
1. France
History - Solid beginnings, lost their way when dealing with the monarchy. Replaced kings (beheaded) with the same kind of thing but not (always) born in a palace (see here). Got ever so tetchy about being only the second or third largest empire in the 19th century and was doubly upset by being invaded in the mid-20th and having to be rescued by their old rivals. Twice.
People stereotype - food, strikes, attitude and hygiene issues. Mainly socialist in public and conservative in private. Good films, bad TV. Most of it summed up by this man here.
How now? - see here.
Chances of winning accolade: - I won't be hanging out the Tricolor any time soon...
2. The USA
History - Completely missed out on the Renaissance due to not yet existing. Once established, went around charging other countries extortionate fees for rescuing them from Nazism and Communism before electing a series of baboons as leaders and invading a host of independent nations if they had differing views to those held by their chief monkey. The whole country is held together by glossy magazine celebrities.
People stereotype - Gullible, trigger-happy religious fanatics with a penchant for only seeing the world in black or white. Four legs good, two legs bad, size also matters here.
How now? - Most have no idea of the difference between what's right and what saves a few bucksworth of tax per year.
Chances of winning accolade - No chance, unless they ban oil drilling and propping up despotic régimes, renounce their addiction to money and put out a decent cricketing team.
3. China
History - Despite inventing a whole load of clever technical stuff whilst we Europeans were still swinging about in trees, lost the plot fairly early on through obsession with self-image and pageant, getting by with a vague change in the standard of civilisation each century until the mid-20th century, when after overthrowing four thousand years of Empire, the country was set back yet another thousand years by misguided ideologists who liked to take whole crowds for long walks. Only in the 21st century have they reached the point where they have to share the status of biggest economy in the world, but in the leagues of spreading human indignity and suffering, lack of care for the environment and lack of morals will always remain first. And considering this planet contains such barbaric places as Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea, that takes some beating. Came of age at their Olympic Games in 2008, which were big on impressive technicalities and tiny on heart.
People stereotype - Don't ask - you'll get the same answer: "we're all happy and we love our country. And weren't the Olympics fantastic?" Mmmyesss.... Although if you turned the corner in Beijing, you wouldn't have known they were taking place.
How now? - Busy buying up minerals to sell to us when we run out, cosying up to dictators who can provide the elite classes with wealth beyond even Westerners' dreams, and destroying whole swathes of their own countryside with grand architectural projects to "civilise" their rural population.
Chances - About as slim as my chances of becoming next Pope. Will maybe be the biggest in everything one day not so far in the future, but never, ever the best. Ever.
4. Germany
History - Feuding princes and lords set about expansion in Europe quite early, developing a penchant for it. Did it every few decades or so. Country oddly disunited until the 19th century when someone had the brilliant idea of putting it together politically. A certain indiscretion in the middle of the 20th century sent this country's candidature to the back of the queue (except China) but its modern-day image is very good and continually rising.
People stereotype - Either über-efficient, über-capable and always blasting opponents off the football pitch, or sausage-munching, beer-swilling Lederhosen-wearing yodelers who drive at excessive speeds on Autobahns in their still German-owned cars.
How now? - A country at ease with itself these days, although still having trouble with foreigners (mainly French politicians and Austrian or Dutch maverick speakers), but still capable of impressing us with its stable economy and smaller but still thriving industrial base. "Made in Germany" still means something.
Chances - Would have been real contenders but for a slight misunderstanding of the territorial rules of the game of football in the mid-20th century, namely the game is supposed to remain on the same pitch.
5. The UK
History - Got invaded once by some angry Norman guy and didn't really enjoy the experience. Spent the next thousand years atoning for it by going off elsewhere so when invasion almost happened again, traded in their status of largest empire to keep their independence, only to immediately trade it in again for an equal share in a huge political pie with the very people they had only recently tried to fight off. Very dodgy infrastructure due to being the oldest industrialised nation. Has a language everyone speaks badly, and a reputation for the exportation of awful reality TV.
People stereotype - Badly dressed, or over-dressed, tea-drinking, umbrella-obsessed, aridly sober or gutter-crawlingly drunk, seagoing individuals who invent amazing stuff in sheds and queue up for the chance to get on overcrowded trains.
How now? - Refreshingly different to everyone else, although this may be its problem. The country was in the process of reinventing itself through the power of taking away from the people its centuries-old faithfulness to civil liberties, replacing the friendly policeman with a camera on every building. That was, until the 2010 election, whose outcome fortunately may have caused the reversal of this disturbing trend. Still the benchmark when it comes to innovation and invention (if the Chinese don't steal it and patent it).
Chances - Strongest contender so far, and not because I'm one of them.
But..........
I'd like to consider a dark horse in this contest, a country which if it were human you'd probably not notice, sitting there in its quiet corner being busily occupied with the continent's plumbing and electricity. This contender is entrant number
6. Poland
History - After driving out the Hungarians, the Germans, the Austrians, the Russians, the French, the Prussians and even the mighty Swedes over centuries and centuries of invasion from north, south, east and west, this prized strategic area of land had a powerful influence on early democracy. It was the object of the desires of the leader of our candidate number 4 in the middle of the 20th century. After suffering from the most abysmal atrocities it was saved by a neighbouring country which then occupied it for the next 45 years, subjecting it to humiliating acts of subservience from time to time. This did not stop the people from rising up against them in brave acts of defiance. Was quickly accepted into the EU after the fall of its occupiers, now one of the most respected members of its new family of nations, contributing a compatriot to be European Parliament President. Due to its people's practical skills, is well on the way to being the most needed nationality in Europe.
People stereotype - People speak a fairytale language full of tricky fricatives and nasal vowels, but "you have a leaky tap? No problem, my cousin Wojciech will fix it for you for a reasonable price and a happy smile on his face." For a nation that has endured so much, the fact they have such a happy attitude and a proper sense of community still, signifies something much deeper than what lies on the surface.
How now? - Although still has some catching up to do, the fact it has survived its centuries of invasion and reinvasion, occupation and destruction, it is a country at peace with itself. Despite not having many motorways, has some of the best driving roads in the world and gives ordinary visitors the kind of welcome reserved for princes elsewhere.
Chances - Maybe, just maybe...
I can't think of any other decent contenders.
Sunday 28 March 2010
Let's not be beastly to the English
All successful people are targets for being shot down by their detractors and those who are jealous of them. It has happened to me recently by certain self-important busybodies at a university where I was until recently injecting some badly-needed motivation and charisma into their rather humdrum, banal and ineffective courses. Some just didn't like the fact that I had a good relationship with the students and that my courses were over-subscribed. Oh yes, and one of the lesser staff members (whose whole philosophy on life is already a little backward-thinking) was investigating my private life, trying to find something to prove I was unsuitable for the position. Eventually they got me on the fact that I didn't have the word "doctor" before my name... As if a higher qualification matters to the overall ability to train and nurture 90 university undergraduates. All the qualifications in the universe do not make a good coach. I wrote a departure letter to my colleagues and left them to stew in their own self-obsessed juices. Still, whatever floats their boat.
And now, to my disbelief, I need to come to the aid of a group of people whom I have not considered to be a part of, but are the indigenous tribe to the place I was born, the English. I have forever classed myself as a British citizen. I think the word "British" is an inclusive, universal term for people who live in the British Isles and even beyond. You can be Scottish first and British second, or the other way round. Same for English, Welsh and dare I say Irish. But you can also be Jamaican and British, Kenyan and British, Canadian and British, Pakistani and British and even Polish and British, why not? It is an advantage we have over other countries in Europe, and makes us more ethnically versatile, tolerant and multi-faceted than the United States.
And this is why I consider it a crying shame that now the English (let's face it, the central pivots on whom their co-inhabitants spin) are feeling threatened, intimidated, spurned and unloved in their own backyard as well as far away.
There is firstly the West Lothian Question, the term coined by Enoch Powell about the paradox that Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs in Westminster have as much say over what happens in England as an English MP, but the same is not afforded to the English themselves as their own local questions are debated in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Stormont. This was tolerated until recently but more and more English people are becoming disenchanted with this situation. Why can that be?
It is simple. For ages now, the Scottish have always enjoyed support from the other Home Nations when competing in sports tournaments. The same for Wales and Northern Ireland, but the English have always been out on their own. This year, one Edinburgh company has made some t-shirts for the World Cup called "ABE", meaning "Anyone But England", a blatant message to those down south about where the Scottish loyalties lie. The English kind of know who they are and are quite comfortable with this, unlike the other areas of the UK, so they could swallow this type of tongue-in-cheek banter.
But the fact that the English are starting to feel that the Scottish are creaming state funds away from English areas to support their own projects, with a cry of indignation and a new round of discussions over independence if they don't get their wish is making the average English a little tired of the continual barrage of anti-Sassenach rhetoric. Taking into account that a person resident in Scotland can go to any university in the UK for free whilst English residents must pay (often running into ten thousand pounds of debt) is forcing English hearts to turn to stone.
And who can blame them?
But it is not just the Scots who are cranking up the anti-English sentiment. The Australians are playing their part too. In the recent Olympic Games in Beijing, the Australians fell behind the British in terms of medals and that made them determined to do something about it. So, as the British won a lot of cycling medals, the Australians have invested hundreds of thousands of their Australian dollars into building up their cycling unit, to the extent that only two years later they have gained three times more medals at the World Cycling Championships as the British team. OK, this is aimed at the British in general, but deep in their minds, it is because the English make up most of the team. The truth of this can be seen in the final of the Australian Open tennis in Melbourne, where the crowd took to singing support for Andy Murray. When asked why this should be so, many said because he's a non-English, English speaker, and therefore one of them.
How cynical.
So, let me tell you this: I have always stuck up for the underdog, if the cause was justified. That means even French and Russians, Poles and Americans, when being needlessly picked upon. The English have put up with others' detractions for a long time but nobody has defended them. This has caused a notable rise in the amount of English people who, even only ten years ago would have never considered the dissolution of the United Kingdom, see it as a necessary step in their rights to reclaim some dignity. You can impose yourself on one nation's hospitality and tolerance for only so long, before they tell you to go off and bother someone else. That is where England happens to be today.
Beware, the Scottish National Party, you may just get your wish, and then who will subsidise your lavishly extravagant social democratic state?
Reasons to be proud of being British:
1. The BBC.2. The tolerance and open-mindedness afforded to all-comers of any nation if they are prepared to work.
3. Religious freedom, even to the point of being over-tolerant to fundamentalists.
4. British philanthropy and charity rundraising - Comic Relief, Sport Relief, Band Aid, eccentric events and feats to raise money for worthy causes.
5. Christie, Hardy, Thomas, Burns, Austen, Rowling, Pratchett, Bateman, McDermid, etc...
6. John Cleese, Rowan Atkinson, Billy Connolly, Dawn French, Tommy Cooper, etc...
7. Sir Chris Hoy, Jenson Button, Gareth Edwards, George Best, Ryan Giggs, Sir Steve Redgrave.
8. The pound Sterling.
9. The Commonwealth.
10. The English language.
11. Keynes, Rutherford, Newton, Macadam, Darwin, Berners Lee, Brunel, Adams, etc...
12. Flower of Scotland, Land of my Fathers, Danny Boy, Land of Hope and Glory
13. The Sunday trip to the garden centre
14. Womens' Institute, Scouts, Girl Guides, Salvation Army, etc...
15. Rugby, Curling, Tennis, Golf, Snooker, Badminton, Bobsleigh, Cricket, Darts, Table Tennis.
16. Sir Mick Jagger, Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Tom Jones
17. The Industrial Revolution.
18. Common Law and precedence
19. Sir Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Margaret Thatcher, Benjamin Disraeli
20. Fair play.
These are just some reasons why we should be immensely proud of our heritage, why we need to put our differences behind us and start working again as a team. Because although the British saved the world from the ravages of totalitarianism, nobody will save her from herself.
And now, to my disbelief, I need to come to the aid of a group of people whom I have not considered to be a part of, but are the indigenous tribe to the place I was born, the English. I have forever classed myself as a British citizen. I think the word "British" is an inclusive, universal term for people who live in the British Isles and even beyond. You can be Scottish first and British second, or the other way round. Same for English, Welsh and dare I say Irish. But you can also be Jamaican and British, Kenyan and British, Canadian and British, Pakistani and British and even Polish and British, why not? It is an advantage we have over other countries in Europe, and makes us more ethnically versatile, tolerant and multi-faceted than the United States.
And this is why I consider it a crying shame that now the English (let's face it, the central pivots on whom their co-inhabitants spin) are feeling threatened, intimidated, spurned and unloved in their own backyard as well as far away.
There is firstly the West Lothian Question, the term coined by Enoch Powell about the paradox that Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs in Westminster have as much say over what happens in England as an English MP, but the same is not afforded to the English themselves as their own local questions are debated in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Stormont. This was tolerated until recently but more and more English people are becoming disenchanted with this situation. Why can that be?
It is simple. For ages now, the Scottish have always enjoyed support from the other Home Nations when competing in sports tournaments. The same for Wales and Northern Ireland, but the English have always been out on their own. This year, one Edinburgh company has made some t-shirts for the World Cup called "ABE", meaning "Anyone But England", a blatant message to those down south about where the Scottish loyalties lie. The English kind of know who they are and are quite comfortable with this, unlike the other areas of the UK, so they could swallow this type of tongue-in-cheek banter.
But the fact that the English are starting to feel that the Scottish are creaming state funds away from English areas to support their own projects, with a cry of indignation and a new round of discussions over independence if they don't get their wish is making the average English a little tired of the continual barrage of anti-Sassenach rhetoric. Taking into account that a person resident in Scotland can go to any university in the UK for free whilst English residents must pay (often running into ten thousand pounds of debt) is forcing English hearts to turn to stone.
And who can blame them?
But it is not just the Scots who are cranking up the anti-English sentiment. The Australians are playing their part too. In the recent Olympic Games in Beijing, the Australians fell behind the British in terms of medals and that made them determined to do something about it. So, as the British won a lot of cycling medals, the Australians have invested hundreds of thousands of their Australian dollars into building up their cycling unit, to the extent that only two years later they have gained three times more medals at the World Cycling Championships as the British team. OK, this is aimed at the British in general, but deep in their minds, it is because the English make up most of the team. The truth of this can be seen in the final of the Australian Open tennis in Melbourne, where the crowd took to singing support for Andy Murray. When asked why this should be so, many said because he's a non-English, English speaker, and therefore one of them.
How cynical.
So, let me tell you this: I have always stuck up for the underdog, if the cause was justified. That means even French and Russians, Poles and Americans, when being needlessly picked upon. The English have put up with others' detractions for a long time but nobody has defended them. This has caused a notable rise in the amount of English people who, even only ten years ago would have never considered the dissolution of the United Kingdom, see it as a necessary step in their rights to reclaim some dignity. You can impose yourself on one nation's hospitality and tolerance for only so long, before they tell you to go off and bother someone else. That is where England happens to be today.
Beware, the Scottish National Party, you may just get your wish, and then who will subsidise your lavishly extravagant social democratic state?
Reasons to be proud of being British:
1. The BBC.2. The tolerance and open-mindedness afforded to all-comers of any nation if they are prepared to work.
3. Religious freedom, even to the point of being over-tolerant to fundamentalists.
4. British philanthropy and charity rundraising - Comic Relief, Sport Relief, Band Aid, eccentric events and feats to raise money for worthy causes.
5. Christie, Hardy, Thomas, Burns, Austen, Rowling, Pratchett, Bateman, McDermid, etc...
6. John Cleese, Rowan Atkinson, Billy Connolly, Dawn French, Tommy Cooper, etc...
7. Sir Chris Hoy, Jenson Button, Gareth Edwards, George Best, Ryan Giggs, Sir Steve Redgrave.
8. The pound Sterling.
9. The Commonwealth.
10. The English language.
11. Keynes, Rutherford, Newton, Macadam, Darwin, Berners Lee, Brunel, Adams, etc...
12. Flower of Scotland, Land of my Fathers, Danny Boy, Land of Hope and Glory
13. The Sunday trip to the garden centre
14. Womens' Institute, Scouts, Girl Guides, Salvation Army, etc...
15. Rugby, Curling, Tennis, Golf, Snooker, Badminton, Bobsleigh, Cricket, Darts, Table Tennis.
16. Sir Mick Jagger, Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Tom Jones
17. The Industrial Revolution.
18. Common Law and precedence
19. Sir Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Margaret Thatcher, Benjamin Disraeli
20. Fair play.
These are just some reasons why we should be immensely proud of our heritage, why we need to put our differences behind us and start working again as a team. Because although the British saved the world from the ravages of totalitarianism, nobody will save her from herself.
Tuesday 16 February 2010
Coming out of the (broom) closet
I think it's about time I let you into a secret. I am a practising Pagan. I have been for nearly three years now, and I don't think I will ever go back to the mysogynistic, male-centric, patriarchal religion I was duped into believing as a child (duped not by my parents, I hasten to add).
Paganism comes in many forms: it is a free-thinking religion. There are many core beliefs which most Pagans adhere to, but on the whole, it is a pretty diverse crowd of people that are involved in it.
Ages Old:
Paganism is older than many people care to think - it stems from pre-historic times and has taken on various forms throughout history, some as insults by members of new religions, some as code names in times of the rise of Christianity's pious leaders who tried to do away with the old ways. Witch. Wise Woman. Druid. Pagan.
The Insult That Became Fashionable:
The word "Pagan" itself is supposed to come from the French word "paysan", or "peasant" in English. The gentrified city folk in the Middle Ages were often God-fearing, French-speaking
Christians and wanted to label the country-dwellers, who often adhered to the old religion, with something insulting and demeaning. So labelling them peasants was one way. They often had red faces due to their winter-scarred skin and many had long implements they used for their occupation, maybe brooms or pitchforks or scythes. And here lies the myth about the devil. The urban Christian priests used to condition their students that the devil was in those people and this was evident in these analogies.
The sure way to tell a Pagan is by the horned animal (the male symbol) they would place in a visible location and use in ceremonies. This is where the idea of the devil with horns comes about. So as you see, with the full might of the Roman Catholic Church attacking them, our predecessors had it tough.
The strange thing is that although the word "Pagan" has dubious origins, it is now one of the main names we call ourselves with.
Mistaken Identity:
We have many annoying stereotypes which follow us around: we're supposed to be long-haired, long-bearded bards with a love of lurid naked dancing and wild sex in the forest. The truth is, I wear a shirt and tie to work and prefer a ceremonial cloak to cover my nakedness. Wild sex is an optional extra (joke). Truth is, most of us do have an area we are interested in. For some it is natural medicine, for some it is philosophy, for some art and crafts, for some music, for others it is advice. I specialise in advice and art.
Beliefs - Look Down
Another myth about the place "Hell" occupies is that it is under the Earth. Another cunning spin from the Catholic propaganda machine. We Pagans don't look up to a god for our inspiration; we look down. Not to Hell, whose existence we don't even acknowledge. We look down to the Earth, the great life-giving planet bumbling through the Solar System. We look at Her abilities to regenerate, to give us the resources needed to survive on Her surface. We wonder at the small things all around. A cat as a whole is a lovely creature. But look closely at the fur, at the nose, at the shape of the ears, and you see why every aspect of Mother Earth's contents should make us want more and more to nurture and sustain what is left in this age of mass de-forestation, urbanisation and economisation.
Beliefs - Global Warming?
Many Pagans believe global warming to be a reality. Many believe the Earth is an intelligent organism capable of giving coded messages to those on Her surface. I fall into the second category, and although I believe in the fact that the planet is in peril, I prefer not to call the process global warming, but meteorological extremification.
There are now on Earth more people alive than people who have lived and died since the Phoenicians started to write. When we move, in transport or just walking, we create heat. Our office blocks generate heat through air conditioning, server use, computer use, heating and anything else in there plugged into the mains. Our homes generate heat when we cook, when we switch on the boiler, when we turn on the radiators, when we play games on the Wii, when we run a bath. A thousand years ago, one house here and there would have had no effect. In fact, right up until the Industrial Revolution reached the USA and even beyond, we were probably doing OK. But now, with us almost unable to go anywhere on the planet without encountering another human being, the Earth is getting a bit fed up.
On top of this, the trend towards a warmer planet is evident whether we were there or now, but we are accelerating this by being so numerous. The Earth is intelligent. She has a thermostat. In the summer of 2003, Europe was barbecued by three months of unbroken sunshine. I was lucky enough to be between jobs and took full advantage of it. But for the summers since then, we have been mostly subjected to temperate, cloudy, rainy affairs in the bulk of the normally hot summers. She is not stupid, our Earth!
We can point towards many phenomena which have occurred probably as a warning to us: earthquakes (see previous post), melting glaciers and ice caps, species suddenly dying out and others thriving, often in unusual places (insects making it much further north, for example). We need to cut certain things out of our lives to slow the process down.
Beliefs - Matriarchal Society:
Our rejection of the man as only rightful head of the family/clan is well-documented, and for good reason: look at the world around you. It is a man-made world, and I use the words wisely. Politics, war, sport, architecture, science, religion, to name a few - these are male-dominated areas. They are not all bad, that is not what I am saying: I merely wish to point out that these areas are male-specific. They could have had many more females in them if the Judaeo-Roman ideology of "strength = power" were not so inherent in our society, even in our enlightened times. Some religions promote male-only heads, stating that the female is too wishy-washy, too capricious to lead or to conduct serious research. Tell that to Margaret Thatcher or Marie Curie. It is a nonsense. Women have just not been given a proper chance.
Beliefs - Not Feminist But Feministic
And here is the main theme here: feminism was the worst thing to happen to the re-establishment of women in all areas of modern society. It made men, and traditionalist women, look down on feminism with such distain that it could have set the agenda back 20 years. Things could have happened much faster had feminists not made a point of making themselves look ridiculous by their often unrealistic demands and bra-burning rants, broadcast to millions, which instantly put most people off the idea.
Fortunately, in this new age, equality means a lot for our society, and most women know in a more dignified, confident manner who they are without the help of the feminists. In this new era of prudence and re-establishment of traditional ideals and family life, this period of coming down off the post-war cloud of decadence and hubris, the family is once again taking centre stage, the childhood stability offered by loving parents is a meaningful and honourable reason for bringing our world full-circle, back to its origins: the mother in her vital central role.
The seasons and their connection to woman:
The seasons of our temperate northern climate also share an important bond with the symbolism of womanhood.
Winter: Our year begins on the night of 31 October-1 November, when we experience the advent of winter, a time of reflection and inner contemplation. At the darkest point of the winter we celebrate, lighting fires and erecting a tree with decoration and light to drive off the negative feelings and bad spirits, welcoming in the period of the Sun, symbol of light, heat and masculinity, the fertiliser. The symbolic woman is still very young.
Spring: The arrival of spring is a joyous occasion, a period when the female is still a girl child, blooming into an adolescent and then a fully adult young woman. The flowers, animals and surroundings all suit the idea of fertility and growth. That is, until the arrival of summer.
Summer: This is when the female is a fully fertaile woman, a child-bearer, a giver of life. All around, life seems to be thriving, all around creatures reap the benefits of a plentiful supply of food, as if the mother has provided it for us. Midsummer is the time the sun starts to take longer to come up, but the preparation made by the introduction of spring and summer nurturing means life can go on much longer.
Autumn: The woman is becoming old, the days are getting shorter. She is a lot wiser, having experienced it all. The leaves are falling from the trees, the nuts are being gathered by the forest creatures. People harvest the fields and orchards to stock up for winter, and slowly the woman goes red, orange, then grey, then white. This is the moon time. Although the moon time started in mid-June, it is in September than it comes in earnest.
This is a shortened form of the cycle, but I hope it explained a few things. This is why places like Stonehenge and Avebury have lunar and solar calculations written into them. This is what they were for: deciding when the seasons changed and when certain agricultural tasks were necessary.
The Gods:
We do not believe in one god or one goddess, but in a series of gods and goddesses building up to a whole. This does not mean we see them in the same way as the Abrahamic God(s), or in the same way as the Greeks and Romans, with their myths and fables. We see the divine in small things, which form a huge entirety. We give thanks for the small things and salute them. We look after the small things in nature so they look after us. The large things in nature will then gain strength. This is why wine can gain in quality, through this process. This is why meat is much tastier if the animal is happy and well-fed in life. In total though, there are two main goddesses: the Earth and the Moon, and one main god, the Sun. Other planets and stars naturally form links to the seasons here on Earth.
Being a Pagan:
You don't need formal training to be a Pagan. You should not be weighed down by inhibitions, conventions and ideologies to be a Pagan. You don't need to have a supernatural talent to be a Pagan. You must not be self-righteous or opinionated. You just need:
Paganism comes in many forms: it is a free-thinking religion. There are many core beliefs which most Pagans adhere to, but on the whole, it is a pretty diverse crowd of people that are involved in it.
Ages Old:
Paganism is older than many people care to think - it stems from pre-historic times and has taken on various forms throughout history, some as insults by members of new religions, some as code names in times of the rise of Christianity's pious leaders who tried to do away with the old ways. Witch. Wise Woman. Druid. Pagan.
The Insult That Became Fashionable:
The word "Pagan" itself is supposed to come from the French word "paysan", or "peasant" in English. The gentrified city folk in the Middle Ages were often God-fearing, French-speaking
Christians and wanted to label the country-dwellers, who often adhered to the old religion, with something insulting and demeaning. So labelling them peasants was one way. They often had red faces due to their winter-scarred skin and many had long implements they used for their occupation, maybe brooms or pitchforks or scythes. And here lies the myth about the devil. The urban Christian priests used to condition their students that the devil was in those people and this was evident in these analogies.
The sure way to tell a Pagan is by the horned animal (the male symbol) they would place in a visible location and use in ceremonies. This is where the idea of the devil with horns comes about. So as you see, with the full might of the Roman Catholic Church attacking them, our predecessors had it tough.
The strange thing is that although the word "Pagan" has dubious origins, it is now one of the main names we call ourselves with.
Mistaken Identity:
We have many annoying stereotypes which follow us around: we're supposed to be long-haired, long-bearded bards with a love of lurid naked dancing and wild sex in the forest. The truth is, I wear a shirt and tie to work and prefer a ceremonial cloak to cover my nakedness. Wild sex is an optional extra (joke). Truth is, most of us do have an area we are interested in. For some it is natural medicine, for some it is philosophy, for some art and crafts, for some music, for others it is advice. I specialise in advice and art.
Beliefs - Look Down
Another myth about the place "Hell" occupies is that it is under the Earth. Another cunning spin from the Catholic propaganda machine. We Pagans don't look up to a god for our inspiration; we look down. Not to Hell, whose existence we don't even acknowledge. We look down to the Earth, the great life-giving planet bumbling through the Solar System. We look at Her abilities to regenerate, to give us the resources needed to survive on Her surface. We wonder at the small things all around. A cat as a whole is a lovely creature. But look closely at the fur, at the nose, at the shape of the ears, and you see why every aspect of Mother Earth's contents should make us want more and more to nurture and sustain what is left in this age of mass de-forestation, urbanisation and economisation.
Beliefs - Global Warming?
Many Pagans believe global warming to be a reality. Many believe the Earth is an intelligent organism capable of giving coded messages to those on Her surface. I fall into the second category, and although I believe in the fact that the planet is in peril, I prefer not to call the process global warming, but meteorological extremification.
There are now on Earth more people alive than people who have lived and died since the Phoenicians started to write. When we move, in transport or just walking, we create heat. Our office blocks generate heat through air conditioning, server use, computer use, heating and anything else in there plugged into the mains. Our homes generate heat when we cook, when we switch on the boiler, when we turn on the radiators, when we play games on the Wii, when we run a bath. A thousand years ago, one house here and there would have had no effect. In fact, right up until the Industrial Revolution reached the USA and even beyond, we were probably doing OK. But now, with us almost unable to go anywhere on the planet without encountering another human being, the Earth is getting a bit fed up.
On top of this, the trend towards a warmer planet is evident whether we were there or now, but we are accelerating this by being so numerous. The Earth is intelligent. She has a thermostat. In the summer of 2003, Europe was barbecued by three months of unbroken sunshine. I was lucky enough to be between jobs and took full advantage of it. But for the summers since then, we have been mostly subjected to temperate, cloudy, rainy affairs in the bulk of the normally hot summers. She is not stupid, our Earth!
We can point towards many phenomena which have occurred probably as a warning to us: earthquakes (see previous post), melting glaciers and ice caps, species suddenly dying out and others thriving, often in unusual places (insects making it much further north, for example). We need to cut certain things out of our lives to slow the process down.
Beliefs - Matriarchal Society:
Our rejection of the man as only rightful head of the family/clan is well-documented, and for good reason: look at the world around you. It is a man-made world, and I use the words wisely. Politics, war, sport, architecture, science, religion, to name a few - these are male-dominated areas. They are not all bad, that is not what I am saying: I merely wish to point out that these areas are male-specific. They could have had many more females in them if the Judaeo-Roman ideology of "strength = power" were not so inherent in our society, even in our enlightened times. Some religions promote male-only heads, stating that the female is too wishy-washy, too capricious to lead or to conduct serious research. Tell that to Margaret Thatcher or Marie Curie. It is a nonsense. Women have just not been given a proper chance.
Beliefs - Not Feminist But Feministic
And here is the main theme here: feminism was the worst thing to happen to the re-establishment of women in all areas of modern society. It made men, and traditionalist women, look down on feminism with such distain that it could have set the agenda back 20 years. Things could have happened much faster had feminists not made a point of making themselves look ridiculous by their often unrealistic demands and bra-burning rants, broadcast to millions, which instantly put most people off the idea.
Fortunately, in this new age, equality means a lot for our society, and most women know in a more dignified, confident manner who they are without the help of the feminists. In this new era of prudence and re-establishment of traditional ideals and family life, this period of coming down off the post-war cloud of decadence and hubris, the family is once again taking centre stage, the childhood stability offered by loving parents is a meaningful and honourable reason for bringing our world full-circle, back to its origins: the mother in her vital central role.
The seasons and their connection to woman:
The seasons of our temperate northern climate also share an important bond with the symbolism of womanhood.
Winter: Our year begins on the night of 31 October-1 November, when we experience the advent of winter, a time of reflection and inner contemplation. At the darkest point of the winter we celebrate, lighting fires and erecting a tree with decoration and light to drive off the negative feelings and bad spirits, welcoming in the period of the Sun, symbol of light, heat and masculinity, the fertiliser. The symbolic woman is still very young.
Spring: The arrival of spring is a joyous occasion, a period when the female is still a girl child, blooming into an adolescent and then a fully adult young woman. The flowers, animals and surroundings all suit the idea of fertility and growth. That is, until the arrival of summer.
Summer: This is when the female is a fully fertaile woman, a child-bearer, a giver of life. All around, life seems to be thriving, all around creatures reap the benefits of a plentiful supply of food, as if the mother has provided it for us. Midsummer is the time the sun starts to take longer to come up, but the preparation made by the introduction of spring and summer nurturing means life can go on much longer.
Autumn: The woman is becoming old, the days are getting shorter. She is a lot wiser, having experienced it all. The leaves are falling from the trees, the nuts are being gathered by the forest creatures. People harvest the fields and orchards to stock up for winter, and slowly the woman goes red, orange, then grey, then white. This is the moon time. Although the moon time started in mid-June, it is in September than it comes in earnest.
This is a shortened form of the cycle, but I hope it explained a few things. This is why places like Stonehenge and Avebury have lunar and solar calculations written into them. This is what they were for: deciding when the seasons changed and when certain agricultural tasks were necessary.
The Gods:
We do not believe in one god or one goddess, but in a series of gods and goddesses building up to a whole. This does not mean we see them in the same way as the Abrahamic God(s), or in the same way as the Greeks and Romans, with their myths and fables. We see the divine in small things, which form a huge entirety. We give thanks for the small things and salute them. We look after the small things in nature so they look after us. The large things in nature will then gain strength. This is why wine can gain in quality, through this process. This is why meat is much tastier if the animal is happy and well-fed in life. In total though, there are two main goddesses: the Earth and the Moon, and one main god, the Sun. Other planets and stars naturally form links to the seasons here on Earth.
Being a Pagan:
You don't need formal training to be a Pagan. You should not be weighed down by inhibitions, conventions and ideologies to be a Pagan. You don't need to have a supernatural talent to be a Pagan. You must not be self-righteous or opinionated. You just need:
- an open mind and heart
- not to be afraid of your body and that of others
- a willingness to observe the Earth and the nature on Her
- to follow your sensitivities and let your emotions and instincts guide you
- a goal to find more of your inner strengths and accept your weaknesses
- a willingness to follow the seasons and the cycle of the sun and the moon
- an openness to a possible supernatural world beyond ours
- a firm understanding of right from wrong
Being a Pagan means there is no overall book as such. Most Pagan beliefs and philosophies have been handed down through the centuries to us from those who went before. We are free to interpret them, and nobody will tell you. Only you yourself can judge, using your innermost instincts and judgements. This is letting the animal in us rise nearer the surface, and all the while being a civilised human being. We need to acknowledge the instinctual part in us. With this, we are able to interpret the future better. Sensitivity and an ability to deduce from a set of circumstances is the secret to successful divination and prediction, not the "conventional" biblical prophecy that certain people try to claim is a God-given gift. It most certainly is not. It is something that requires learning and study, maybe even a lifetime of knowledge-gaining.
Natural/Supernatural?
Many people talk about fairies and pixies, ghosts and spirits. This is another thing which needs answering. I want to concentrate on the fact that we believe very strongly in an afterlife, and some believe in a beforelife too. Many Eastern philosophies and wisdoms transfer themselves into Paganism with ease. The beliefs of reincarnation, is one, and karma is pretty much an integral part of our philosophies. The belief of doing to and having a positive attitude towards not only other people but many things and even concepts (which is where we diversify from Christianity) as we would want for ourselves makes us a very peaceful and contemplative group of people.
Finally...
I would like to finish by making categorically clear that our beliefs are not set in stone, that our conventions do not always fit the average person's ideas on life and personal conduct, and every one of us will have a different belief to another.
Being associated to Paganism is something I take pride in, and something I will not give up so easily. Having made it this far, I realise just how far-sighted I have become, how much easier it is to know if someone is telling the truth or not, and how walking alone in the forest in the still of the night is a frequent pleasure of mine, something others find very difficult to do.
But if you intend no harm, nothing will harm you.
Sunday 17 January 2010
This week, God finally died.
Once in a generation, there comes an event so horrifying, so mind-bendingly stomach-churning, that you hope it never reveals its ugly head on this earth again.
In the early and mid 20th century, we saw two world wars which thankfully are past us now and almost out of living memory. In the fifties, sixties and early seventies we had the haunting images of those vicious fights over Korea and Vietnam. In the early 21st century we watched in disgust as some monstrous fundamentalists used planes as their weapons to bring down two towers in New York. These five events were brought about by ideology. Although not all religious, ideology has been responsible for the five most unnecessary losses of life in one hundred years. World War 1 was responsible for between 15 and 25 million deaths, World War 2 for up to 70 million. Korea for about 3 million and Vietnam for up to 5 million. This is excluding the Russian Civil War (up to 8.5 million) from 1917 to 1924 and the Second Congolese War of 1998 to 2003 (5 million est).
Ideology, whether over ethnic superiority, political belief or religion, has been responsible for the deaths of over 120 million people in 100 years. The human being is the most destructive, most murderous animal alive. Fighting for ideology is futile in this world though, and always has been, although nobody has noticed it. There is another murderous force, so mighty, it can wipe us out in the space of seconds. It discriminates against no-one and never picks a target. We call it nature. Some call it God.
The search for God is useless because there can be no God. You cannot blame a war on a god, but if there were God, a natural disaster cannot be anyone else's fault but His. And what exactly have the Haitians done to deserve such a battering of these proportions? Haiti was a fairly peace-loving nation of individuals with a strong sense of community, recently tormented by hurricanes, floods and disease. Not to mention an angry run of dictators.
So after all that, why do they deserve such an earthquake which, if it had happened four hundred or more years ago would have been called divine retribution? What would an author of the Bible have made of it? What would God be divinely intervening in down there in Haiti? Why not London's banking zone or Seattle's Microsoft HQ? Surely they deserve it more...?
If there is a God, then "He" sure has some strange ideas about who should get payback. I mean, if God were around, wouldn't He have had a hit-list which would include:
Bankers
Landmine manufacturers
People traffickers
Oil profiteers
Extremists and fundamentalists
Greasy western and northern democratic leaders
Nasty eastern and southern despots?
And wouldn't He try to protect the harmless:
Pacific islanders from sinking
Caribbean islanders from being blasted by hurricanes
Equatorial dwellers from famine
Peasants from starvation
Victims from criminals
People affected by earthquakes?
So if anyone should ever wish to try to convert me to a monotheistic religion, especially one with an ideology that God will protect us, then they are wasting their time with me, because I cannot stomach such dangerous, unrealistic nonsense.
This week, if He ever existed in the first place, God finally died in the hearts of many decent, law-abiding people, in the minds of many charity donors and aid workers. For those poor inhabitants of Haiti, He obviously never wanted to be acknowledged in the first place, let alone worshiped. He has certainly never really been there for us, so why should people still continue this futile belief in Him?
Would the last one to leave the Church please put the lights out?
In the early and mid 20th century, we saw two world wars which thankfully are past us now and almost out of living memory. In the fifties, sixties and early seventies we had the haunting images of those vicious fights over Korea and Vietnam. In the early 21st century we watched in disgust as some monstrous fundamentalists used planes as their weapons to bring down two towers in New York. These five events were brought about by ideology. Although not all religious, ideology has been responsible for the five most unnecessary losses of life in one hundred years. World War 1 was responsible for between 15 and 25 million deaths, World War 2 for up to 70 million. Korea for about 3 million and Vietnam for up to 5 million. This is excluding the Russian Civil War (up to 8.5 million) from 1917 to 1924 and the Second Congolese War of 1998 to 2003 (5 million est).
Ideology, whether over ethnic superiority, political belief or religion, has been responsible for the deaths of over 120 million people in 100 years. The human being is the most destructive, most murderous animal alive. Fighting for ideology is futile in this world though, and always has been, although nobody has noticed it. There is another murderous force, so mighty, it can wipe us out in the space of seconds. It discriminates against no-one and never picks a target. We call it nature. Some call it God.
The search for God is useless because there can be no God. You cannot blame a war on a god, but if there were God, a natural disaster cannot be anyone else's fault but His. And what exactly have the Haitians done to deserve such a battering of these proportions? Haiti was a fairly peace-loving nation of individuals with a strong sense of community, recently tormented by hurricanes, floods and disease. Not to mention an angry run of dictators.
So after all that, why do they deserve such an earthquake which, if it had happened four hundred or more years ago would have been called divine retribution? What would an author of the Bible have made of it? What would God be divinely intervening in down there in Haiti? Why not London's banking zone or Seattle's Microsoft HQ? Surely they deserve it more...?
If there is a God, then "He" sure has some strange ideas about who should get payback. I mean, if God were around, wouldn't He have had a hit-list which would include:
Bankers
Landmine manufacturers
People traffickers
Oil profiteers
Extremists and fundamentalists
Greasy western and northern democratic leaders
Nasty eastern and southern despots?
And wouldn't He try to protect the harmless:
Pacific islanders from sinking
Caribbean islanders from being blasted by hurricanes
Equatorial dwellers from famine
Peasants from starvation
Victims from criminals
People affected by earthquakes?
So if anyone should ever wish to try to convert me to a monotheistic religion, especially one with an ideology that God will protect us, then they are wasting their time with me, because I cannot stomach such dangerous, unrealistic nonsense.
This week, if He ever existed in the first place, God finally died in the hearts of many decent, law-abiding people, in the minds of many charity donors and aid workers. For those poor inhabitants of Haiti, He obviously never wanted to be acknowledged in the first place, let alone worshiped. He has certainly never really been there for us, so why should people still continue this futile belief in Him?
Would the last one to leave the Church please put the lights out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)