Until this rant, I only ever thought of Kashmir as a rather good Led Zep song.
So then; India and Pakistan. You can't leave them alone for a minute these days. Even if they both promise to be on their best behaviour, the second you turn your back they're busy threatening each other with mutual annihilation, the naughty little tricksters. Should we be worried about the reports emerging from the sub-continent (that tend to get tucked away behind more important news stories such as Jordan giving birth, or the new series of Big Brother) or is it yet another case where we will see the international equivalent of 2 blokes squaring up to each other on a Saturday night whilst their girlfriends screech "He's not worth it Kev, just leave it!" in the background?
Before attempting to unravel just why these two countries are currently behaving in the same way that England and France wish they still could, it's worth having a look at the history behind the two. In recent history, it all began when England got it's wrist slapped for still having an Empire at the end of WWII. Part of that Empire was the Indian sub-continent. In 1947-8, there were various elections and statutes aimed at dismantling the British Empire. The elections on the subcontinent showed that the majority of people in what is now Pakistan (it was West Pakistan; East Pakistan is now Bangladesh, but as it is a country made up almost entirely of mud, sediment, and poverty, India rarely seems to feel the need to rattle it's sabre to the east) wanted a Muslim state whilst the people of India were predominantly Hindu with a sizeable Sikh minority. So, hence the division of the subcontinent into Hindu India and Moslem Pakistan.
This all seems fairly reasonable so far. But, as is clearly stated in the United Nations Charter, paragraph 15; "Every silver lining must have a cloud". In this case, the cloud has turned out to be Kashmir. And it's a pretty substantial cloud too judging by the fact that India and Pakistan have either been at war or threatening to go to war over Kashmir for the last 40 or 50 years. And the reason that they're willing to go to war over it is that, thanks to those elections in 1947-8, it's currently divided between the two, completely owned by neither one country nor the other.
Now you may think that this tells you everything that you need to know about the current situation; 2 countries, both of whom are saying "Mine! Gimme!" about a piece of land on their border where the population are divided by religion. Not entirely dissimilar to Northern Ireland really, correct? Nope, alas not. I've been doing a little background research concerning Kashmir (which was previously best known to me as the title of a rather good Led Zeppelin tune, which was itself ripped off by such luminaries as Puff Daddy for a film about a dinosaur, and by the BBC for their World Cup coverage) and I find that things are not quite that straightforward.
Kashmir was a separate kingdom for many centuries. Although it was divided along religious lines, it's cultural makeup is almost entirely Persian, meaning that they have more in common with Iran than either India or Pakistan. As such, Kashmir wants to be independent from both nations. As to whether they could run the country without it degenerating into either a bloodbath (the fear of Humanitarians) or a haven for terrorists (the fear of Politicians)....well, barring the occasional bout of religious zeal (funny how absolute devotion to religions that are supposed to be about Brotherhood tends to get expressed by a desire to kill as many human beings in as short a space of time as possible...), the Hindu and Moslem populations lived together in relative peace. Now the poor bastards are being used to represent the India-Pakistan antipathy in microcosm. The conflict over Kashmir has, in fact, got almost nothing to do with Kashmir. Like most bad things in the world, it's about national pride and international politics.
For example, India and Pakistan are neighbours and rivals. The issue of Kashmir has been grinding along for some time now. Occasionally, peace talks are mooted and these usually centre round the idea that maybe a place that was independent for most of recorded history should be independent once more. Then, once everyone gets round the table, one side or other finds an excuse for not talking to the other, everyone goes away in a huff, and the people of Kashmir find that their country is once more being used as battlefield practice by the Indian military and Pakistan sponsored Islamic militants.
As to why both nations behave with the maturity of England fan after seeing Germany getting beat 5 – 1... well that would take a lot more time than I currently have to look at. But in short, India doesn't want to give up any territory as it would
A: Be regarded as giving in to Islamic militant terrorists, and
B: Have to give up some land. And it's their land. And no one else can have it. So yah, boo, sucks to you.
Pakistan is also rather reluctant to settle the issue. Their reasons are somewhat different. As we have had demonstrated to us over the last few months, Pakistan has a rich and proud tradition of producing Islamic militants so toe-curlingly insane that they make Fred and Rose West look like Zippy and George. When these happy go lucky types aren't calling for death to anyone who has committed the heinous crime of not being a Moslem, they're generally calling for the overthrow of the government in order to replace it with something like hell on earth. The Pakistani government has previously dealt with this in two way; the first was to encourage said fanatics to go to Afghanistan and fight their ideological battles against other Moslems. The second was to encourage them to go to Kashmir and fight for the liberation of their Moslem brothers and sisters.
As they no longer have the first option open to them (well...not whilst America is looking on), that leaves Kashmir as the only option. Or in other words, it suits Pakistan to leave Kashmir divided as it takes care of a possible domestic problem. It suits India to do so because angry rhetoric over Kashmir is a sure-fire vote winner. The only people who it doesn't suit are the people of Kashmir. And why should anyone care about them when they're not a real country anyway?
And so, because no-one in the world really cared too much about Indians and Pakistanis killing Kashmiri’s and each other with gay abandon, the whole rather shabby mess has been allowed to degenerate further still. And now, suddenly, everyone is paying attention and sweating gently with fear. Why? Good old nuclear weapons, that's why! As it's painfully clear how frightened I am of Nuclear War, I won't restate the point again (although if a nuclear war does break out in the next few weeks, the biggest concentration of journalists from around the world are going to be a stones throw away in Japan for the World Cup. Does anyone else find the idea of John Motson commentating on the apocalypse rather amusing, or is it just me?). But what I will say is that it's funny how the rest of the world only started caring about Kashmir when it became clear that it might be about to be reduced to molten rock along with the Indian subcontinent and most of the southern former Soviet republics. Not to mention the cataclysmic effect on the world's eco-system that even a small scale nuclear war would have. In other words, the second it started looking like it might affect us, then we're all ears.
Happily, the warlike posturing of both nations is beginning to die down a little. Presumably the leaders of both countries recognise that they would like to have countries left to lead. But in a strange sort of way I find myself applauding both of them. After all, it's nice of them to remind the US and Europe that, if we insist on allowing nations we regard as lesser or inferior to try and obliterate each other when in it's our interests to allow them to do so, and if we arm those nations to help them along, then we shouldn't be too surprised when they decide to go the whole hog and develop the most destructive weapons of all. With luck, one day the supposedly civilised West will realise that a peaceful and contented life for all is in everyone's best interests. Until then we can look forward to various 'patriots' continuing to demand that other countries sort their own mess out, whilst burying their heads in the sand as to who is responsible for the mess in the first place.
Monday, 27 May 2002
Monday, 13 May 2002
Women, eh?
This is what happens when a gobshite fails to get laid.
Women: You're all a bunch of fucking arseholes.
Okay, I realise that perhaps that seems a trifle harsh. Misogynistic even. D'you know something? I am now completely past giving even the remotest semblance of a shit whether it is or not. I've been in the vilest mood for the last couple of months and last week I had a sudden moment of clarity as to exactly why this should be. After all, I'm in the (admittedly slow) process of getting together with the woman whom I love, my money problems of the last year are rapidly diminishing, and Newcastle are playing European football next year. What cloud could possibly darken the horizon for me? Let me give you a clue; any man who has ever heard the words "You're like a brother to me" or "You're my best friend" off an achingly gorgeous woman will almost certainly be horribly familiar with the tirade that is about to unfold.
I was, and continue to be, single from November 2000. For any young man, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. And so, remembering the advice given to me by my lady friends, I set about doing my best to attract and woo myself back into a relationship.
Okay, I've read that back and even I can see that it's bollocks. What actually happened was that I asked my friends how I could guarantee myself a shag. Not particularly chivalrous I admit but hey, I'd been in a relationship for 9 years; cut me a little bit of slack here.
Anyway the advice of the ladies was to be a gentleman (or at least appear as if you are one), be friendly (well duh...), don't be afraid to use flattery, and generally portray oneself as a decent bloke. However, it has become increasingly apparent over the last year and a bit that they were either;
A - Lying
B - Having a laugh at my expense
C- Kidding themselves, or
D- They have no idea what women want.
And what women want, what they really really want, is a complete and total bastard of a man who will treat them with supreme indifference and, if they're really lucky, utter contempt. Well shit....
Now then; seeing as I've already discussed this with some of my lady friends, and seeing as the reaction has uniformly been "No we don't, women want a nice man who'll make them feel special", I feel that at this point I should offer an example of the truth of this statement by way of an explanation as to why I've come to this conclusion. And it's quite a simple one really. You see, I split from my girlfriend at about the same time as a former friend of mine split from his wife. I have, almost without exception, tried to behave like a gent in that time. I realise that, for those of you who know me and are aware of just how stultifying unpleasant and sarcastic I can be, this may seem difficult to swallow (though not nearly as difficult as it is to persuade a young lady to do so...). Believe me, it wasn't easy for me to keep hidden the bile and rancour that comes so naturally to me! And, being human, I have once drifted over to the realm of bastard-dom myself. But by and large, I've done my best to be a decent human being.
In the meantime, my erstwhile former friend behaved like a complete shit; sleeping with his best friends girlfriend, copping off with his step-sister in a nightclub mere months before her wedding (to another friend of his), getting one of his housemates drunk so that he could get her into bed, doing his best to make sure that the blame for any and all of this landed anywhere but on his own head...you know, all the kind of stuff that a woman would say that she can't stand.
And yet, whereas I have found my testicles swelling to the size of a small cottage in Suffolk due an extraordinary lack of amorous activity, that bastard has had to order himself a bigger and shittier stick with which to beat off the colossal number of women who cannot wait to get their oestrogen swollen hands on him! I'VE BEEN LAID 3 TIMES IN 9 MONTHS!! IT'S NOT FUCKING RIGHT!!!
And it gets better; whenever I complain about this (and oh, how I complain...) I am told that I should be grateful! Why should I be grateful? Well, I have acquired a much better and trusting relationship with whichever particular woman I spent my time getting to know, being friendly toward, treating her with respect, etc, whereas every woman he has slept with can't stand the sight of him. Well, that's a massive consolation! I'm sure that the knowledge of how many good looking, sexually active, female friends I have with get me through the night WHEN I'M ON MY BASTARD OWN AGAIN! THAT FUCKING PRICK IS BALLS DEEP WHENEVER HE FUCKING WANTS! D'YOU THINK HE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT HAVING FRIENDS AT THE END OF IT?!
(Incidentally, I suppose that in the interests of candour, I should come clean and admit that he is a better-looking man than I am. Even so, I like to think I'm not a hideously disfigured Elephant man lookalike. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken in this belief...)
Yet the ladies still keep saying "No, we don't want a bastard. We want a nice man who...". And it's at that point that I usually lean in towards them and look them in the eye. I look them in the eye so that they know that what I'm about to say is important. And then, in a loud and clear voice, I say "Bollocks". Every single woman who has started this particular line has now met with that particular response. And with one exception, they have a track record with men that would put Eva Braun to shame. They have almost all, with very few exceptions, spent large portions of their time with bastards who treated them like badger poo. Those who have not are lying, gay, or are just too ashamed to admit that they have done. If ANYONE can respond to me and prove me wrong, then I will gladly offer a personal apology to them for implying that they have, at some point in their lives, gone out with a man whom they know in the depths of their soul to be a bad bastard who would bring them nothing but grief.
Still, I suppose that some women don't hanker after a bastard. These are the women whom the bastards consider too ugly to have anything to do with. After all, why should he when he can have his pick of gorgeous women, ALL OF WHOM COME CRYING TO THE LIKES OF ARSEHOLES LIKE ME WHEN IT ALL GOES TO SHIT!! I am SICK to death of this! I've lost count of how many teary and humiliated women I've sat with, reassuring them that no, they're not a vile freak of nature and yes, he obviously doesn't know what he's missing out on. Oh...and you're feeling better now? So...oh, there you go with another piece of shit who manages to both lower your self esteem AND convince you of how much you need him. Can you really blame me for being so pissed off about this?!
Honest to Christ, I'm really starting to think I should just cut the fucking thing off, or turn celibate, or try and convince myself I fancy other men; anything at all rather than go through the torturous routine of yet another woman bleating that "You wouldn't want to go out with me; my life is such a mess". Hm, yes, I'm sure that I'd want nothing to do with your exceptionally tight, pert little mess. Why that would just break my fucking heart...
If it's not that, it's a friend saying "Well, women tend to like a bit of a bastard when they're younger. They grow out of it though..." WHEN?! I'M TWENTY FUCKING SIX; HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO WAIT GODDAMMIT!?!! And now that I come to think about it, I'm not even sure I like that as an explanation; are they trying to say that they want excitement? Fuck me, I spend most days PRAYING for a less eventful life! I have an over-abundance of excitement in my life (except at work of course; how else would I have the time to write these angry little missives?), I dream of a truly dull week, so it can't be that I'm boring (I hope).
Anyway, the point of all of this...well, the point is for me to get this out of my system really, but I do have a point I want to make as well. More of a plea really (although, surprisingly, not for a shag; my former friend was often reduced to pleading and I have such contempt for him that I refuse to drop to his level); ladies, if you're going to be friends with a man then do him one massive favour from the outset; make it very VERY clear that you have no desire whatsoever to sleep with him. Honestly, it'll save a lot of time and heartache, and it will also mean that those men who remain your friends are REALLY your friends, and are not just hanging around in the desperate hope that one day you'll suddenly want to fuck them. That way, people like me with find it less intolerable seeing you walking out of the door, arm in arm with yet another complete fucking wanker.
Women: You're all a bunch of fucking arseholes.
Okay, I realise that perhaps that seems a trifle harsh. Misogynistic even. D'you know something? I am now completely past giving even the remotest semblance of a shit whether it is or not. I've been in the vilest mood for the last couple of months and last week I had a sudden moment of clarity as to exactly why this should be. After all, I'm in the (admittedly slow) process of getting together with the woman whom I love, my money problems of the last year are rapidly diminishing, and Newcastle are playing European football next year. What cloud could possibly darken the horizon for me? Let me give you a clue; any man who has ever heard the words "You're like a brother to me" or "You're my best friend" off an achingly gorgeous woman will almost certainly be horribly familiar with the tirade that is about to unfold.
I was, and continue to be, single from November 2000. For any young man, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. And so, remembering the advice given to me by my lady friends, I set about doing my best to attract and woo myself back into a relationship.
Okay, I've read that back and even I can see that it's bollocks. What actually happened was that I asked my friends how I could guarantee myself a shag. Not particularly chivalrous I admit but hey, I'd been in a relationship for 9 years; cut me a little bit of slack here.
Anyway the advice of the ladies was to be a gentleman (or at least appear as if you are one), be friendly (well duh...), don't be afraid to use flattery, and generally portray oneself as a decent bloke. However, it has become increasingly apparent over the last year and a bit that they were either;
A - Lying
B - Having a laugh at my expense
C- Kidding themselves, or
D- They have no idea what women want.
And what women want, what they really really want, is a complete and total bastard of a man who will treat them with supreme indifference and, if they're really lucky, utter contempt. Well shit....
Now then; seeing as I've already discussed this with some of my lady friends, and seeing as the reaction has uniformly been "No we don't, women want a nice man who'll make them feel special", I feel that at this point I should offer an example of the truth of this statement by way of an explanation as to why I've come to this conclusion. And it's quite a simple one really. You see, I split from my girlfriend at about the same time as a former friend of mine split from his wife. I have, almost without exception, tried to behave like a gent in that time. I realise that, for those of you who know me and are aware of just how stultifying unpleasant and sarcastic I can be, this may seem difficult to swallow (though not nearly as difficult as it is to persuade a young lady to do so...). Believe me, it wasn't easy for me to keep hidden the bile and rancour that comes so naturally to me! And, being human, I have once drifted over to the realm of bastard-dom myself. But by and large, I've done my best to be a decent human being.
In the meantime, my erstwhile former friend behaved like a complete shit; sleeping with his best friends girlfriend, copping off with his step-sister in a nightclub mere months before her wedding (to another friend of his), getting one of his housemates drunk so that he could get her into bed, doing his best to make sure that the blame for any and all of this landed anywhere but on his own head...you know, all the kind of stuff that a woman would say that she can't stand.
And yet, whereas I have found my testicles swelling to the size of a small cottage in Suffolk due an extraordinary lack of amorous activity, that bastard has had to order himself a bigger and shittier stick with which to beat off the colossal number of women who cannot wait to get their oestrogen swollen hands on him! I'VE BEEN LAID 3 TIMES IN 9 MONTHS!! IT'S NOT FUCKING RIGHT!!!
And it gets better; whenever I complain about this (and oh, how I complain...) I am told that I should be grateful! Why should I be grateful? Well, I have acquired a much better and trusting relationship with whichever particular woman I spent my time getting to know, being friendly toward, treating her with respect, etc, whereas every woman he has slept with can't stand the sight of him. Well, that's a massive consolation! I'm sure that the knowledge of how many good looking, sexually active, female friends I have with get me through the night WHEN I'M ON MY BASTARD OWN AGAIN! THAT FUCKING PRICK IS BALLS DEEP WHENEVER HE FUCKING WANTS! D'YOU THINK HE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT HAVING FRIENDS AT THE END OF IT?!
(Incidentally, I suppose that in the interests of candour, I should come clean and admit that he is a better-looking man than I am. Even so, I like to think I'm not a hideously disfigured Elephant man lookalike. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken in this belief...)
Yet the ladies still keep saying "No, we don't want a bastard. We want a nice man who...". And it's at that point that I usually lean in towards them and look them in the eye. I look them in the eye so that they know that what I'm about to say is important. And then, in a loud and clear voice, I say "Bollocks". Every single woman who has started this particular line has now met with that particular response. And with one exception, they have a track record with men that would put Eva Braun to shame. They have almost all, with very few exceptions, spent large portions of their time with bastards who treated them like badger poo. Those who have not are lying, gay, or are just too ashamed to admit that they have done. If ANYONE can respond to me and prove me wrong, then I will gladly offer a personal apology to them for implying that they have, at some point in their lives, gone out with a man whom they know in the depths of their soul to be a bad bastard who would bring them nothing but grief.
Still, I suppose that some women don't hanker after a bastard. These are the women whom the bastards consider too ugly to have anything to do with. After all, why should he when he can have his pick of gorgeous women, ALL OF WHOM COME CRYING TO THE LIKES OF ARSEHOLES LIKE ME WHEN IT ALL GOES TO SHIT!! I am SICK to death of this! I've lost count of how many teary and humiliated women I've sat with, reassuring them that no, they're not a vile freak of nature and yes, he obviously doesn't know what he's missing out on. Oh...and you're feeling better now? So...oh, there you go with another piece of shit who manages to both lower your self esteem AND convince you of how much you need him. Can you really blame me for being so pissed off about this?!
Honest to Christ, I'm really starting to think I should just cut the fucking thing off, or turn celibate, or try and convince myself I fancy other men; anything at all rather than go through the torturous routine of yet another woman bleating that "You wouldn't want to go out with me; my life is such a mess". Hm, yes, I'm sure that I'd want nothing to do with your exceptionally tight, pert little mess. Why that would just break my fucking heart...
If it's not that, it's a friend saying "Well, women tend to like a bit of a bastard when they're younger. They grow out of it though..." WHEN?! I'M TWENTY FUCKING SIX; HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO WAIT GODDAMMIT!?!! And now that I come to think about it, I'm not even sure I like that as an explanation; are they trying to say that they want excitement? Fuck me, I spend most days PRAYING for a less eventful life! I have an over-abundance of excitement in my life (except at work of course; how else would I have the time to write these angry little missives?), I dream of a truly dull week, so it can't be that I'm boring (I hope).
Anyway, the point of all of this...well, the point is for me to get this out of my system really, but I do have a point I want to make as well. More of a plea really (although, surprisingly, not for a shag; my former friend was often reduced to pleading and I have such contempt for him that I refuse to drop to his level); ladies, if you're going to be friends with a man then do him one massive favour from the outset; make it very VERY clear that you have no desire whatsoever to sleep with him. Honestly, it'll save a lot of time and heartache, and it will also mean that those men who remain your friends are REALLY your friends, and are not just hanging around in the desperate hope that one day you'll suddenly want to fuck them. That way, people like me with find it less intolerable seeing you walking out of the door, arm in arm with yet another complete fucking wanker.
Tuesday, 23 April 2002
Jean Marie Le Pen
Well, much though it pains me to think about the French in any real detail, I find that recent events in that lovely country have forced my hand. You may or may not be aware that the good people of France have given the rest of the world one more reason to think less of them. Over the weekend, the first round of the Presidential elections took place. The purpose of the first round is to narrow the race down to two candidates, and the second round is a straight competition between them. Everyone in their right mind expected the Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, to go through to the second round and face President Chirac. Instead, thanks to the efforts of numerous people who clearly are not in their right mind, the National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has gone through to the second round.
Normally of course I am all for anything that heaps shame and indignation on the French, but if one puts the standard English-French antipathy to one side for a moment, then one can see that the first round result is not a good thing for all of us. The National Front, as their name suggests, are a party who hold French patriotism dear. This in itself is no bad thing (and lest you feel ready to scream "racist" at me I ask you to be patient; I shall explain that comment in more detail later on). However, much like the National Front of the UK they promote their idea of patriotism at the expense of anybody who doesn't pass muster as a true Frenchman.
You will not be surprised to learn that M. Le Pen believes that blacks, first and second generation immigrants, people of the French colonies, Jews, Moslems, socialists, in fact anybody who isn't a member of the National Front, is not a true Frenchman. His ideas on policy are beyond laughable (he wants to repatriate any and all French citizens of Arabic and African descent. This is the same man who claimed the French victory in the World Cup as proof of the superiority of the French. I wonder if anyone pointed out that half the team were black and that their star player was of North African descent...) and if he were elected it would surely spell doom for France's economy and viability as a leading part of Europe.
Various commentators assure us that M. Le Pen has no chance whatsoever of winning the election, and that he will only receive approximately 22% of the vote. Well okay, so he won't win. Good. But doesn't anybody else find the idea of almost a quarter of France voting for a right wing extremist who described the gassing of 6 million Jews as "a detail of history" just a little bit unsettling? With the strength of his support in mind, doesn't the fact that he wants to take France out of the EU provide a rather ominous omen for European integration?
The resurgence of the extreme right is by no means limited to France. In Austria, Jorg Haider found himself and his far right party sharing government with the centre right. In Italy, Silvio Berlisconi's coalition government includes the original fascist party founded by Mussolini back in the 1920's. And here in the UK, last summers race riots heralded increased activity from those glorious thugs in the British National Party. It seems that we are forgetting that no matter how well groomed and presented the various far right spokesmen are, no matter what their honeyed words assure, and no matter how much they may try and dissemble their nature, these people are racist thugs. The last time that the far right had such influence in Europe was in the 1930's, and I hardly need remind anyone what the overall result of that awful little decade was.
So why are the far right doing so well? What has led literally millions of people to think that having extremists in government is a good thing? Well, I suspect that there are a number of reasons behind it, ranging from voter apathy, political sleaze, and misappropriated patriotism. Not to mention the rise of extremism worldwide (Religious fundamentalists, Australia's stance on immigrants, militant pro-lifers etc.), although I would say that this is symptomatic of the problem rather than it's cause.
Firstly, voter apathy can be blamed to a large extent for M. Le Pen's victory. There was a 75% turnout at the polls in France. This is still considerably higher than in the UK (where the BNP stand to make huge gains in the council elections in early May due to the fact that most people won't bother to vote whilst the brain dead few who think that racism is a good thing will turn out in droves) and almost double that of the US (who's elected leader is regarded as a joke by the rest of the world and where the Evangelical Christian Right have an inordinate amount of influence despite their relatively small numbers), but it still means that a quarter of the country didn’t vote M. Le Pen received 16.9% of the votes, whilst M. Jospin took 16%. That tiny difference could quite easily have been bridged had just a few hundred more people voted. A few hundred people have been the difference between France choosing a racist and extremist to run for the presidency, or choosing a fairly ineffectual but good natured career politician who would have been little different from the previous President.
Which leads onto the next point; political sleaze. It's a common complaint of mine that there is no real choice in politics these days. All of the mainstream political parties in Europe and the US preach much the same doctrine; that of pragmatism. They almost all work to the idea that if they can guarantee that tomorrow is like today then people will grow docile and contented. If people care less and less about what goes on in the corridors of power, then politicians can get away with enacting their own personal agenda without even having to go through the motions of consulting the public. And whilst they do so, they become distant from our everyday lives, caring little that public services and infrastructure are creaking and falling apart.
So when a party comes along that promises to blast away the cobwebs of government and act in the interests of the people and who hearken back to a golden age in a nation's history (a golden age that, more often than not, has never existed outside of people's imaginations), then they are bound to attract attention from the angry and disillusioned. In the meantime, thanks to voter apathy, no one can be bothered to vote. And so, even though the extremist parties are attracting maybe only 10% of the electorate, the fact that only another 20% or so are voting means that the extremists get a disproportionately large vote. And so they find themselves in local government, or even in government itself.
As a final point, I'd like to address the various patriotic trappings that the various extremist parties use. In England, being patriotic is seen as a bad thing. This is because of thugs such as the BNP who claim that to be patriotic, you have to agree with them. In the meantime, the political party that is usually seen as the voice of the patriotic Englishman (the Tories) is slowly collapsing in on itself and performing with staggering ineptitude. The other mainstream parties, perhaps in a hangover from the National Front heyday of the late seventies coupled with Margaret Thatcher's shanghaiing of patriotism for her election campaign, shy away from overt patriotism. So a young man or woman who considers him or herself to be patriotic has the choice of a corrupt and toothless political party, or the vibrant and dynamic British National Party.
I deplore the fact that patriotism in England has been hijacked by thugs and racists; today is St Georges day and yet you will not see a single English flag hanging from the lampposts (I'm less concerned about the Union Jack; St George is England’s patron saint and the Union Jack is made up of all of the flags of Great Britain). Should you attempt to make a show of your pride in being English, be in no doubt that many will assume that you are racist. Why is this? No one bats an eyelid at the celebration of St Patrick’s Day. No one accuses the Scottish Nationalists of being bigots. Once again, I would say that apathy is the problem. "Why bother to reclaim the flag from extremists? It won't really matter. Just as long as tomorrow is like today." Just as our attitude towards electing the people who are going to make the decisions that change our lives is deplorable, so is our attitude to anything else that we feel doesn't directly concern us.
Well, I know it's such a hassle and a pain for people to walk anything up to 200 metres in order to vote, but if I could perhaps exhort them not to be so, well lets not mince words here, stupid and lazy? And perhaps do something to ensure that the country they live in does not become a bastion of intolerance and stupidity? Is it really much to ask? I have an awful feeling that the answer will be yes. Maybe this is how the likes of Hitler came to power and caused such destruction; not because people cared so much that they worked hard to get him into power, but because no-one cared enough to bother to stop him.
Normally of course I am all for anything that heaps shame and indignation on the French, but if one puts the standard English-French antipathy to one side for a moment, then one can see that the first round result is not a good thing for all of us. The National Front, as their name suggests, are a party who hold French patriotism dear. This in itself is no bad thing (and lest you feel ready to scream "racist" at me I ask you to be patient; I shall explain that comment in more detail later on). However, much like the National Front of the UK they promote their idea of patriotism at the expense of anybody who doesn't pass muster as a true Frenchman.
You will not be surprised to learn that M. Le Pen believes that blacks, first and second generation immigrants, people of the French colonies, Jews, Moslems, socialists, in fact anybody who isn't a member of the National Front, is not a true Frenchman. His ideas on policy are beyond laughable (he wants to repatriate any and all French citizens of Arabic and African descent. This is the same man who claimed the French victory in the World Cup as proof of the superiority of the French. I wonder if anyone pointed out that half the team were black and that their star player was of North African descent...) and if he were elected it would surely spell doom for France's economy and viability as a leading part of Europe.
Various commentators assure us that M. Le Pen has no chance whatsoever of winning the election, and that he will only receive approximately 22% of the vote. Well okay, so he won't win. Good. But doesn't anybody else find the idea of almost a quarter of France voting for a right wing extremist who described the gassing of 6 million Jews as "a detail of history" just a little bit unsettling? With the strength of his support in mind, doesn't the fact that he wants to take France out of the EU provide a rather ominous omen for European integration?
The resurgence of the extreme right is by no means limited to France. In Austria, Jorg Haider found himself and his far right party sharing government with the centre right. In Italy, Silvio Berlisconi's coalition government includes the original fascist party founded by Mussolini back in the 1920's. And here in the UK, last summers race riots heralded increased activity from those glorious thugs in the British National Party. It seems that we are forgetting that no matter how well groomed and presented the various far right spokesmen are, no matter what their honeyed words assure, and no matter how much they may try and dissemble their nature, these people are racist thugs. The last time that the far right had such influence in Europe was in the 1930's, and I hardly need remind anyone what the overall result of that awful little decade was.
So why are the far right doing so well? What has led literally millions of people to think that having extremists in government is a good thing? Well, I suspect that there are a number of reasons behind it, ranging from voter apathy, political sleaze, and misappropriated patriotism. Not to mention the rise of extremism worldwide (Religious fundamentalists, Australia's stance on immigrants, militant pro-lifers etc.), although I would say that this is symptomatic of the problem rather than it's cause.
Firstly, voter apathy can be blamed to a large extent for M. Le Pen's victory. There was a 75% turnout at the polls in France. This is still considerably higher than in the UK (where the BNP stand to make huge gains in the council elections in early May due to the fact that most people won't bother to vote whilst the brain dead few who think that racism is a good thing will turn out in droves) and almost double that of the US (who's elected leader is regarded as a joke by the rest of the world and where the Evangelical Christian Right have an inordinate amount of influence despite their relatively small numbers), but it still means that a quarter of the country didn’t vote M. Le Pen received 16.9% of the votes, whilst M. Jospin took 16%. That tiny difference could quite easily have been bridged had just a few hundred more people voted. A few hundred people have been the difference between France choosing a racist and extremist to run for the presidency, or choosing a fairly ineffectual but good natured career politician who would have been little different from the previous President.
Which leads onto the next point; political sleaze. It's a common complaint of mine that there is no real choice in politics these days. All of the mainstream political parties in Europe and the US preach much the same doctrine; that of pragmatism. They almost all work to the idea that if they can guarantee that tomorrow is like today then people will grow docile and contented. If people care less and less about what goes on in the corridors of power, then politicians can get away with enacting their own personal agenda without even having to go through the motions of consulting the public. And whilst they do so, they become distant from our everyday lives, caring little that public services and infrastructure are creaking and falling apart.
So when a party comes along that promises to blast away the cobwebs of government and act in the interests of the people and who hearken back to a golden age in a nation's history (a golden age that, more often than not, has never existed outside of people's imaginations), then they are bound to attract attention from the angry and disillusioned. In the meantime, thanks to voter apathy, no one can be bothered to vote. And so, even though the extremist parties are attracting maybe only 10% of the electorate, the fact that only another 20% or so are voting means that the extremists get a disproportionately large vote. And so they find themselves in local government, or even in government itself.
As a final point, I'd like to address the various patriotic trappings that the various extremist parties use. In England, being patriotic is seen as a bad thing. This is because of thugs such as the BNP who claim that to be patriotic, you have to agree with them. In the meantime, the political party that is usually seen as the voice of the patriotic Englishman (the Tories) is slowly collapsing in on itself and performing with staggering ineptitude. The other mainstream parties, perhaps in a hangover from the National Front heyday of the late seventies coupled with Margaret Thatcher's shanghaiing of patriotism for her election campaign, shy away from overt patriotism. So a young man or woman who considers him or herself to be patriotic has the choice of a corrupt and toothless political party, or the vibrant and dynamic British National Party.
I deplore the fact that patriotism in England has been hijacked by thugs and racists; today is St Georges day and yet you will not see a single English flag hanging from the lampposts (I'm less concerned about the Union Jack; St George is England’s patron saint and the Union Jack is made up of all of the flags of Great Britain). Should you attempt to make a show of your pride in being English, be in no doubt that many will assume that you are racist. Why is this? No one bats an eyelid at the celebration of St Patrick’s Day. No one accuses the Scottish Nationalists of being bigots. Once again, I would say that apathy is the problem. "Why bother to reclaim the flag from extremists? It won't really matter. Just as long as tomorrow is like today." Just as our attitude towards electing the people who are going to make the decisions that change our lives is deplorable, so is our attitude to anything else that we feel doesn't directly concern us.
Well, I know it's such a hassle and a pain for people to walk anything up to 200 metres in order to vote, but if I could perhaps exhort them not to be so, well lets not mince words here, stupid and lazy? And perhaps do something to ensure that the country they live in does not become a bastion of intolerance and stupidity? Is it really much to ask? I have an awful feeling that the answer will be yes. Maybe this is how the likes of Hitler came to power and caused such destruction; not because people cared so much that they worked hard to get him into power, but because no-one cared enough to bother to stop him.
Tuesday, 16 April 2002
Middle Eastern Thread
Along with 1984, the film "Threads" has been one of the three big influences on my way of thinking.
Mind you, the 3rd big influence is Romero's Zombies...
I watched Threads last night, which, if you know me, you'll know is not a good idea. Threads is a British film made in the mid 80's which deals with the impact of nuclear war on society (the 'impact' being that it wipes society and most of humanity off the map). The first half deals with the build up to the war (a series of incidents in the middle east provide the flashpoint, and they are inter-cut with various news items and government announcements heavy on phrases such as 'precautionary measure' and 'international condemnation') whilst the second half looks at the aftermath. Anyway, a friend of mine asked to watch it and, in much the same way as people enjoy going on rollercoasters, I enjoy watching a film which infuses me with extraordinary terror. So it was with the mingled sensations of fear, excitement, and anticipation that I pressed the Play button on the VCR. A little over 2 hours later and the shell-shocked face of my friend indicated that the film had had it's desired effect and that she now had the futility of war impressed quite firmly upon her. So I stopped the tape.
On came the news, and on came a number of items dealing with the current violence in Israel. We watched for a short while until we realised that perhaps listening to various people from the Middle East discussing 'precautionary measures' whilst shrugging off 'international condemnation' was not the best thing for us to do post film.
And so it is that I find myself thinking once more of Israel. It's a place that is occupying the thoughts and minds of many right now. Admittedly, a fair few of them only think of it in terms of "Why should I care what happens in Israel?” and should you be one of them then I would advise you to find a copy of Threads, watch it, and then take a few days off work to recover. But the fact remains that the current situation in Israel is very, VERY bad, and whether we like it or not it may well all end up having to care what happens there whether we like it or not.
Before I go any further, I should declare my own personal biases. I despise Ariel Sharon. I believe him to be a warmongering nazi of a man who is sacrificing peace in order to play out his own personal bigotry. I'm also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, by which I mean their right to self ruled homeland that is free of Israeli interference and in turn does not seek to interfere with the running of Israel. All straight forward so far.
That said, certain things should also be borne in mind before leaping to the conclusion that Israel is bad and Palestine is good. We have been hearing a lot recently about suicide bombers and Palestinian terrorists. They have been active long before now, with fanatical bombers and terrorists having waged war on Israel for decades. Whilst we tot up the daily death toll of Palestinian people due to Sharon's butchery, we should never forget that Israeli's have lived in the shadow of Palestinian and Arab sponsored terrorism for a long, long time.
Not only that, but since it's creation Israel has found itself in a position of fighting for it's very existence. The Arab and Palestinian states surrounding Israel swore to destroy it. They didn't succeed. But they tried (and in some cases, tried again). When that failed, some saw sense and sued for peace (Egypt, although recently it has severed most diplomatic links) whilst others sought to fund those who wanted to continue the violence. Thus Hamas, the PLO etc found that they had a source of money, which would enable them to wage a war of terror against Israel.
So all in all, it's becoming increasingly clear to see where the Israeli siege mentality comes in. It's easy for the rest of the world to condemn the actions of Israel, but can you think of many reasons why Israel should pay any attention? What did the international community do for Jews before and during WWII? Oh, that's right; there were various statements of condemnation at best, tacit approval at worst. How about during the various short and bloody conflicts of the past 40 years? The international community condemned the actions of Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc in the strongest possible terms...and did nothing more. What about the numerous terrorist attacks that have been aimed at Israel? Yes, more condemnation. No, no real action taken. And currently? Well, Israel is now facing much condemnation. Does Ariel Sharon think that anything will really be done to stop any of the military action? No. Do the Israeli people trust the international community to bring those responsible for the terror attacks on them to justice? No. Can anyone really blame them for thinking this way, under the weight of their short and bloody history? No.
So when I say that I condemn the actions of the Israeli military over the last few weeks, I'm not (as those conservatives who support what Israel is doing would have you think) a simpering liberal who thinks that the Palestinians are on the side of the angels. I'm not (as certain members of the Israeli government would have you believe) an anti-Semite who wants to see Israel wiped from the map. And however much I sympathise with the Palestinian cause, I'm certainly not praising the actions of those bombers and fanatics who have caused carnage in Israel. I feel the need to make that clear as it seems that we have a tendency to assume that by condemning one we support the other. In other words, their is a tendency to see the world in black and white.
That isn't the case of course; there are shades of grey in any dispute, and this one is no different. Yet we are still quick to try and assign the roles of good guy and bad guy. Perhaps this makes things simpler for us. Perhaps we're still hungover from WWII, where one side was clearly in the right and one was clearly in the wrong (and yet even there, a few moral ambiguities existed; try asking a member of the UK Military about the fate of the Karen people in Burma...). Perhaps there are a lot more anti-Semites in the world than I realised. Whatever it is, most people seem anxious to lay the blame with one side or other. Each side has it's apologists who deplore the atrocities committed against them whilst justifying or downplaying those committed against the other side. All perfectly understandable given human nature, but not exactly likely to bring hostilities to an end.
(As a side note, I realise that by saying how much I dislike the Israeli leader, apologists for Israel would say that I am a supporter of Yasser Arafat. For the record, Arafat is, in my opinion, a corrupt old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist factions to function as an effective leader of his people. He cannot be regarded by Israel as a man to negotiate with, or a man who can stop the terrorism whilst he is in hock to it's perpetrators. And yet, who else is there?)
The problem lies in self-interest. Actually, that's wrong; the problem lies in the fact that we are refusing to acknowledge our self-interest. The US are currently particularly interested in solving the problems in Israel. Isn't it funny how they only became interested in a solution involving both sides when it became clear that middle eastern support for it's little Boy's Own war against Iraq was approximately nil due to their speed in condemning Palestinian terror and sloth in condemning that which originates from Israel. The same can be said of the UK and, to a lesser degree, Europe. Various Moslem nations (particularly Saudi Arabia) are now seeking a resolution of the conflict, offering recognition of Israel and normalised relationships (i.e. the official position will no longer be "Death to Israel!"). Yet they were much less interested before their own people made uneasy mutterings about their leaders supporting the US who in turn support Israel who in turn oppress Palestinians. So are the Moslem nations interested in peace for the Palestinians, or are they only interested in holding on to their power?
We only act when it benefits ourselves; that is human nature. But we create high-minded rhetoric (such as 'international condemnation') to make that human nature seem like so much more than it is. I do believe that many people do want to see an end to killing in Israel for humanitarian reasons, but I wouldn't count our leaders among them. Nor would I condemn them for acting in the best interests of their own countries (human nature remember, although I do dislike the fact that we are still at evolutiononary stage where the most important thing in our lives is our own little fief). But I do condemn the fact that we all seem so determined to find somewhere to cast the blame, because that is what justifies the high minded rhetoric and disguises our own self-interest. In Threads, that led to a nuclear exchange. In Israel, it leads to further violence, which may spread beyond what we are currently seeing.
My point is this; it doesn't matter who started the violence, who is historically to blame, or who is a darker shade of grey up to now on the moral scale. What matter is that it needs to stop; Ariel Sharon knows he will not stop the suicide bombs using his current tactics. Whether you support him or not, I think that this is pretty much irrefutable. Nor will Yasser Arafat ever have sufficient authority to be able to stop the suicide bombers. It is in our interests for the violence to stop because it could spread far beyond the borders of Israel. I'm getting tired of seeing people argue over semantics about the terror in Israel; pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, those who seek a secular solution, those who use religion to justify the violence, etc. None of it really matters I'm afraid. The only thing that matters is stopping the cycle of violence and terror. The only thing stopping us is that we don't see how it benefits us. So go and watch Threads. You'll start to get an idea of why I think stopping the violence in the Middle East benefits every living being on the planet.
Mind you, the 3rd big influence is Romero's Zombies...
I watched Threads last night, which, if you know me, you'll know is not a good idea. Threads is a British film made in the mid 80's which deals with the impact of nuclear war on society (the 'impact' being that it wipes society and most of humanity off the map). The first half deals with the build up to the war (a series of incidents in the middle east provide the flashpoint, and they are inter-cut with various news items and government announcements heavy on phrases such as 'precautionary measure' and 'international condemnation') whilst the second half looks at the aftermath. Anyway, a friend of mine asked to watch it and, in much the same way as people enjoy going on rollercoasters, I enjoy watching a film which infuses me with extraordinary terror. So it was with the mingled sensations of fear, excitement, and anticipation that I pressed the Play button on the VCR. A little over 2 hours later and the shell-shocked face of my friend indicated that the film had had it's desired effect and that she now had the futility of war impressed quite firmly upon her. So I stopped the tape.
On came the news, and on came a number of items dealing with the current violence in Israel. We watched for a short while until we realised that perhaps listening to various people from the Middle East discussing 'precautionary measures' whilst shrugging off 'international condemnation' was not the best thing for us to do post film.
And so it is that I find myself thinking once more of Israel. It's a place that is occupying the thoughts and minds of many right now. Admittedly, a fair few of them only think of it in terms of "Why should I care what happens in Israel?” and should you be one of them then I would advise you to find a copy of Threads, watch it, and then take a few days off work to recover. But the fact remains that the current situation in Israel is very, VERY bad, and whether we like it or not it may well all end up having to care what happens there whether we like it or not.
Before I go any further, I should declare my own personal biases. I despise Ariel Sharon. I believe him to be a warmongering nazi of a man who is sacrificing peace in order to play out his own personal bigotry. I'm also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, by which I mean their right to self ruled homeland that is free of Israeli interference and in turn does not seek to interfere with the running of Israel. All straight forward so far.
That said, certain things should also be borne in mind before leaping to the conclusion that Israel is bad and Palestine is good. We have been hearing a lot recently about suicide bombers and Palestinian terrorists. They have been active long before now, with fanatical bombers and terrorists having waged war on Israel for decades. Whilst we tot up the daily death toll of Palestinian people due to Sharon's butchery, we should never forget that Israeli's have lived in the shadow of Palestinian and Arab sponsored terrorism for a long, long time.
Not only that, but since it's creation Israel has found itself in a position of fighting for it's very existence. The Arab and Palestinian states surrounding Israel swore to destroy it. They didn't succeed. But they tried (and in some cases, tried again). When that failed, some saw sense and sued for peace (Egypt, although recently it has severed most diplomatic links) whilst others sought to fund those who wanted to continue the violence. Thus Hamas, the PLO etc found that they had a source of money, which would enable them to wage a war of terror against Israel.
So all in all, it's becoming increasingly clear to see where the Israeli siege mentality comes in. It's easy for the rest of the world to condemn the actions of Israel, but can you think of many reasons why Israel should pay any attention? What did the international community do for Jews before and during WWII? Oh, that's right; there were various statements of condemnation at best, tacit approval at worst. How about during the various short and bloody conflicts of the past 40 years? The international community condemned the actions of Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc in the strongest possible terms...and did nothing more. What about the numerous terrorist attacks that have been aimed at Israel? Yes, more condemnation. No, no real action taken. And currently? Well, Israel is now facing much condemnation. Does Ariel Sharon think that anything will really be done to stop any of the military action? No. Do the Israeli people trust the international community to bring those responsible for the terror attacks on them to justice? No. Can anyone really blame them for thinking this way, under the weight of their short and bloody history? No.
So when I say that I condemn the actions of the Israeli military over the last few weeks, I'm not (as those conservatives who support what Israel is doing would have you think) a simpering liberal who thinks that the Palestinians are on the side of the angels. I'm not (as certain members of the Israeli government would have you believe) an anti-Semite who wants to see Israel wiped from the map. And however much I sympathise with the Palestinian cause, I'm certainly not praising the actions of those bombers and fanatics who have caused carnage in Israel. I feel the need to make that clear as it seems that we have a tendency to assume that by condemning one we support the other. In other words, their is a tendency to see the world in black and white.
That isn't the case of course; there are shades of grey in any dispute, and this one is no different. Yet we are still quick to try and assign the roles of good guy and bad guy. Perhaps this makes things simpler for us. Perhaps we're still hungover from WWII, where one side was clearly in the right and one was clearly in the wrong (and yet even there, a few moral ambiguities existed; try asking a member of the UK Military about the fate of the Karen people in Burma...). Perhaps there are a lot more anti-Semites in the world than I realised. Whatever it is, most people seem anxious to lay the blame with one side or other. Each side has it's apologists who deplore the atrocities committed against them whilst justifying or downplaying those committed against the other side. All perfectly understandable given human nature, but not exactly likely to bring hostilities to an end.
(As a side note, I realise that by saying how much I dislike the Israeli leader, apologists for Israel would say that I am a supporter of Yasser Arafat. For the record, Arafat is, in my opinion, a corrupt old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist factions to function as an effective leader of his people. He cannot be regarded by Israel as a man to negotiate with, or a man who can stop the terrorism whilst he is in hock to it's perpetrators. And yet, who else is there?)
The problem lies in self-interest. Actually, that's wrong; the problem lies in the fact that we are refusing to acknowledge our self-interest. The US are currently particularly interested in solving the problems in Israel. Isn't it funny how they only became interested in a solution involving both sides when it became clear that middle eastern support for it's little Boy's Own war against Iraq was approximately nil due to their speed in condemning Palestinian terror and sloth in condemning that which originates from Israel. The same can be said of the UK and, to a lesser degree, Europe. Various Moslem nations (particularly Saudi Arabia) are now seeking a resolution of the conflict, offering recognition of Israel and normalised relationships (i.e. the official position will no longer be "Death to Israel!"). Yet they were much less interested before their own people made uneasy mutterings about their leaders supporting the US who in turn support Israel who in turn oppress Palestinians. So are the Moslem nations interested in peace for the Palestinians, or are they only interested in holding on to their power?
We only act when it benefits ourselves; that is human nature. But we create high-minded rhetoric (such as 'international condemnation') to make that human nature seem like so much more than it is. I do believe that many people do want to see an end to killing in Israel for humanitarian reasons, but I wouldn't count our leaders among them. Nor would I condemn them for acting in the best interests of their own countries (human nature remember, although I do dislike the fact that we are still at evolutiononary stage where the most important thing in our lives is our own little fief). But I do condemn the fact that we all seem so determined to find somewhere to cast the blame, because that is what justifies the high minded rhetoric and disguises our own self-interest. In Threads, that led to a nuclear exchange. In Israel, it leads to further violence, which may spread beyond what we are currently seeing.
My point is this; it doesn't matter who started the violence, who is historically to blame, or who is a darker shade of grey up to now on the moral scale. What matter is that it needs to stop; Ariel Sharon knows he will not stop the suicide bombs using his current tactics. Whether you support him or not, I think that this is pretty much irrefutable. Nor will Yasser Arafat ever have sufficient authority to be able to stop the suicide bombers. It is in our interests for the violence to stop because it could spread far beyond the borders of Israel. I'm getting tired of seeing people argue over semantics about the terror in Israel; pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, those who seek a secular solution, those who use religion to justify the violence, etc. None of it really matters I'm afraid. The only thing that matters is stopping the cycle of violence and terror. The only thing stopping us is that we don't see how it benefits us. So go and watch Threads. You'll start to get an idea of why I think stopping the violence in the Middle East benefits every living being on the planet.
Middle Eastern Thread
Along with 1984, the film "Threads" has been one of the three big influences on my way of thinking.
Mind you, the 3rd big influence is Romero's Zombies...
I watched Threads last night, which, if you know me, you'll know is not a good idea. Threads is a British film made in the mid 80's which deals with the impact of nuclear war on society (the 'impact' being that it wipes society and most of humanity off the map). The first half deals with the build up to the war (a series of incidents in the middle east provide the flashpoint, and they are inter-cut with various news items and government announcements heavy on phrases such as 'precautionary measure' and 'international condemnation') whilst the second half looks at the aftermath. Anyway, a friend of mine asked to watch it and, in much the same way as people enjoy going on rollercoasters, I enjoy watching a film which infuses me with extraordinary terror. So it was with the mingled sensations of fear, excitement, and anticipation that I pressed the Play button on the VCR. A little over 2 hours later and the shell-shocked face of my friend indicated that the film had had it's desired effect and that she now had the futility of war impressed quite firmly upon her. So I stopped the tape.
On came the news, and on came a number of items dealing with the current violence in Israel. We watched for a short while until we realised that perhaps listening to various people from the Middle East discussing 'precautionary measures' whilst shrugging off 'international condemnation' was not the best thing for us to do post film.
And so it is that I find myself thinking once more of Israel. It's a place that is occupying the thoughts and minds of many right now. Admittedly, a fair few of them only think of it in terms of "Why should I care what happens in Israel?” and should you be one of them then I would advise you to find a copy of Threads, watch it, and then take a few days off work to recover. But the fact remains that the current situation in Israel is very, VERY bad, and whether we like it or not it may well all end up having to care what happens there whether we like it or not.
Before I go any further, I should declare my own personal biases. I despise Ariel Sharon. I believe him to be a warmongering nazi of a man who is sacrificing peace in order to play out his own personal bigotry. I'm also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, by which I mean their right to self ruled homeland that is free of Israeli interference and in turn does not seek to interfere with the running of Israel. All straight forward so far.
That said, certain things should also be borne in mind before leaping to the conclusion that Israel is bad and Palestine is good. We have been hearing a lot recently about suicide bombers and Palestinian terrorists. They have been active long before now, with fanatical bombers and terrorists having waged war on Israel for decades. Whilst we tot up the daily death toll of Palestinian people due to Sharon's butchery, we should never forget that Israeli's have lived in the shadow of Palestinian and Arab sponsored terrorism for a long, long time.
Not only that, but since it's creation Israel has found itself in a position of fighting for it's very existence. The Arab and Palestinian states surrounding Israel swore to destroy it. They didn't succeed. But they tried (and in some cases, tried again). When that failed, some saw sense and sued for peace (Egypt, although recently it has severed most diplomatic links) whilst others sought to fund those who wanted to continue the violence. Thus Hamas, the PLO etc found that they had a source of money, which would enable them to wage a war of terror against Israel.
So all in all, it's becoming increasingly clear to see where the Israeli siege mentality comes in. It's easy for the rest of the world to condemn the actions of Israel, but can you think of many reasons why Israel should pay any attention? What did the international community do for Jews before and during WWII? Oh, that's right; there were various statements of condemnation at best, tacit approval at worst. How about during the various short and bloody conflicts of the past 40 years? The international community condemned the actions of Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc in the strongest possible terms...and did nothing more. What about the numerous terrorist attacks that have been aimed at Israel? Yes, more condemnation. No, no real action taken. And currently? Well, Israel is now facing much condemnation. Does Ariel Sharon think that anything will really be done to stop any of the military action? No. Do the Israeli people trust the international community to bring those responsible for the terror attacks on them to justice? No. Can anyone really blame them for thinking this way, under the weight of their short and bloody history? No.
So when I say that I condemn the actions of the Israeli military over the last few weeks, I'm not (as those conservatives who support what Israel is doing would have you think) a simpering liberal who thinks that the Palestinians are on the side of the angels. I'm not (as certain members of the Israeli government would have you believe) an anti-Semite who wants to see Israel wiped from the map. And however much I sympathise with the Palestinian cause, I'm certainly not praising the actions of those bombers and fanatics who have caused carnage in Israel. I feel the need to make that clear as it seems that we have a tendency to assume that by condemning one we support the other. In other words, their is a tendency to see the world in black and white.
That isn't the case of course; there are shades of grey in any dispute, and this one is no different. Yet we are still quick to try and assign the roles of good guy and bad guy. Perhaps this makes things simpler for us. Perhaps we're still hungover from WWII, where one side was clearly in the right and one was clearly in the wrong (and yet even there, a few moral ambiguities existed; try asking a member of the UK Military about the fate of the Karen people in Burma...). Perhaps there are a lot more anti-Semites in the world than I realised. Whatever it is, most people seem anxious to lay the blame with one side or other. Each side has it's apologists who deplore the atrocities committed against them whilst justifying or downplaying those committed against the other side. All perfectly understandable given human nature, but not exactly likely to bring hostilities to an end.
(As a side note, I realise that by saying how much I dislike the Israeli leader, apologists for Israel would say that I am a supporter of Yasser Arafat. For the record, Arafat is, in my opinion, a corrupt old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist factions to function as an effective leader of his people. He cannot be regarded by Israel as a man to negotiate with, or a man who can stop the terrorism whilst he is in hock to it's perpetrators. And yet, who else is there?)
The problem lies in self-interest. Actually, that's wrong; the problem lies in the fact that we are refusing to acknowledge our self-interest. The US are currently particularly interested in solving the problems in Israel. Isn't it funny how they only became interested in a solution involving both sides when it became clear that middle eastern support for it's little Boy's Own war against Iraq was approximately nil due to their speed in condemning Palestinian terror and sloth in condemning that which originates from Israel. The same can be said of the UK and, to a lesser degree, Europe. Various Moslem nations (particularly Saudi Arabia) are now seeking a resolution of the conflict, offering recognition of Israel and normalised relationships (i.e. the official position will no longer be "Death to Israel!"). Yet they were much less interested before their own people made uneasy mutterings about their leaders supporting the US who in turn support Israel who in turn oppress Palestinians. So are the Moslem nations interested in peace for the Palestinians, or are they only interested in holding on to their power?
We only act when it benefits ourselves; that is human nature. But we create high-minded rhetoric (such as 'international condemnation') to make that human nature seem like so much more than it is. I do believe that many people do want to see an end to killing in Israel for humanitarian reasons, but I wouldn't count our leaders among them. Nor would I condemn them for acting in the best interests of their own countries (human nature remember, although I do dislike the fact that we are still at evolutiononary stage where the most important thing in our lives is our own little fief). But I do condemn the fact that we all seem so determined to find somewhere to cast the blame, because that is what justifies the high minded rhetoric and disguises our own self-interest. In Threads, that led to a nuclear exchange. In Israel, it leads to further violence, which may spread beyond what we are currently seeing.
My point is this; it doesn't matter who started the violence, who is historically to blame, or who is a darker shade of grey up to now on the moral scale. What matter is that it needs to stop; Ariel Sharon knows he will not stop the suicide bombs using his current tactics. Whether you support him or not, I think that this is pretty much irrefutable. Nor will Yasser Arafat ever have sufficient authority to be able to stop the suicide bombers. It is in our interests for the violence to stop because it could spread far beyond the borders of Israel. I'm getting tired of seeing people argue over semantics about the terror in Israel; pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, those who seek a secular solution, those who use religion to justify the violence, etc. None of it really matters I'm afraid. The only thing that matters is stopping the cycle of violence and terror. The only thing stopping us is that we don't see how it benefits us. So go and watch Threads. You'll start to get an idea of why I think stopping the violence in the Middle East benefits every living being on the planet.
Mind you, the 3rd big influence is Romero's Zombies...
I watched Threads last night, which, if you know me, you'll know is not a good idea. Threads is a British film made in the mid 80's which deals with the impact of nuclear war on society (the 'impact' being that it wipes society and most of humanity off the map). The first half deals with the build up to the war (a series of incidents in the middle east provide the flashpoint, and they are inter-cut with various news items and government announcements heavy on phrases such as 'precautionary measure' and 'international condemnation') whilst the second half looks at the aftermath. Anyway, a friend of mine asked to watch it and, in much the same way as people enjoy going on rollercoasters, I enjoy watching a film which infuses me with extraordinary terror. So it was with the mingled sensations of fear, excitement, and anticipation that I pressed the Play button on the VCR. A little over 2 hours later and the shell-shocked face of my friend indicated that the film had had it's desired effect and that she now had the futility of war impressed quite firmly upon her. So I stopped the tape.
On came the news, and on came a number of items dealing with the current violence in Israel. We watched for a short while until we realised that perhaps listening to various people from the Middle East discussing 'precautionary measures' whilst shrugging off 'international condemnation' was not the best thing for us to do post film.
And so it is that I find myself thinking once more of Israel. It's a place that is occupying the thoughts and minds of many right now. Admittedly, a fair few of them only think of it in terms of "Why should I care what happens in Israel?” and should you be one of them then I would advise you to find a copy of Threads, watch it, and then take a few days off work to recover. But the fact remains that the current situation in Israel is very, VERY bad, and whether we like it or not it may well all end up having to care what happens there whether we like it or not.
Before I go any further, I should declare my own personal biases. I despise Ariel Sharon. I believe him to be a warmongering nazi of a man who is sacrificing peace in order to play out his own personal bigotry. I'm also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, by which I mean their right to self ruled homeland that is free of Israeli interference and in turn does not seek to interfere with the running of Israel. All straight forward so far.
That said, certain things should also be borne in mind before leaping to the conclusion that Israel is bad and Palestine is good. We have been hearing a lot recently about suicide bombers and Palestinian terrorists. They have been active long before now, with fanatical bombers and terrorists having waged war on Israel for decades. Whilst we tot up the daily death toll of Palestinian people due to Sharon's butchery, we should never forget that Israeli's have lived in the shadow of Palestinian and Arab sponsored terrorism for a long, long time.
Not only that, but since it's creation Israel has found itself in a position of fighting for it's very existence. The Arab and Palestinian states surrounding Israel swore to destroy it. They didn't succeed. But they tried (and in some cases, tried again). When that failed, some saw sense and sued for peace (Egypt, although recently it has severed most diplomatic links) whilst others sought to fund those who wanted to continue the violence. Thus Hamas, the PLO etc found that they had a source of money, which would enable them to wage a war of terror against Israel.
So all in all, it's becoming increasingly clear to see where the Israeli siege mentality comes in. It's easy for the rest of the world to condemn the actions of Israel, but can you think of many reasons why Israel should pay any attention? What did the international community do for Jews before and during WWII? Oh, that's right; there were various statements of condemnation at best, tacit approval at worst. How about during the various short and bloody conflicts of the past 40 years? The international community condemned the actions of Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc in the strongest possible terms...and did nothing more. What about the numerous terrorist attacks that have been aimed at Israel? Yes, more condemnation. No, no real action taken. And currently? Well, Israel is now facing much condemnation. Does Ariel Sharon think that anything will really be done to stop any of the military action? No. Do the Israeli people trust the international community to bring those responsible for the terror attacks on them to justice? No. Can anyone really blame them for thinking this way, under the weight of their short and bloody history? No.
So when I say that I condemn the actions of the Israeli military over the last few weeks, I'm not (as those conservatives who support what Israel is doing would have you think) a simpering liberal who thinks that the Palestinians are on the side of the angels. I'm not (as certain members of the Israeli government would have you believe) an anti-Semite who wants to see Israel wiped from the map. And however much I sympathise with the Palestinian cause, I'm certainly not praising the actions of those bombers and fanatics who have caused carnage in Israel. I feel the need to make that clear as it seems that we have a tendency to assume that by condemning one we support the other. In other words, their is a tendency to see the world in black and white.
That isn't the case of course; there are shades of grey in any dispute, and this one is no different. Yet we are still quick to try and assign the roles of good guy and bad guy. Perhaps this makes things simpler for us. Perhaps we're still hungover from WWII, where one side was clearly in the right and one was clearly in the wrong (and yet even there, a few moral ambiguities existed; try asking a member of the UK Military about the fate of the Karen people in Burma...). Perhaps there are a lot more anti-Semites in the world than I realised. Whatever it is, most people seem anxious to lay the blame with one side or other. Each side has it's apologists who deplore the atrocities committed against them whilst justifying or downplaying those committed against the other side. All perfectly understandable given human nature, but not exactly likely to bring hostilities to an end.
(As a side note, I realise that by saying how much I dislike the Israeli leader, apologists for Israel would say that I am a supporter of Yasser Arafat. For the record, Arafat is, in my opinion, a corrupt old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist factions to function as an effective leader of his people. He cannot be regarded by Israel as a man to negotiate with, or a man who can stop the terrorism whilst he is in hock to it's perpetrators. And yet, who else is there?)
The problem lies in self-interest. Actually, that's wrong; the problem lies in the fact that we are refusing to acknowledge our self-interest. The US are currently particularly interested in solving the problems in Israel. Isn't it funny how they only became interested in a solution involving both sides when it became clear that middle eastern support for it's little Boy's Own war against Iraq was approximately nil due to their speed in condemning Palestinian terror and sloth in condemning that which originates from Israel. The same can be said of the UK and, to a lesser degree, Europe. Various Moslem nations (particularly Saudi Arabia) are now seeking a resolution of the conflict, offering recognition of Israel and normalised relationships (i.e. the official position will no longer be "Death to Israel!"). Yet they were much less interested before their own people made uneasy mutterings about their leaders supporting the US who in turn support Israel who in turn oppress Palestinians. So are the Moslem nations interested in peace for the Palestinians, or are they only interested in holding on to their power?
We only act when it benefits ourselves; that is human nature. But we create high-minded rhetoric (such as 'international condemnation') to make that human nature seem like so much more than it is. I do believe that many people do want to see an end to killing in Israel for humanitarian reasons, but I wouldn't count our leaders among them. Nor would I condemn them for acting in the best interests of their own countries (human nature remember, although I do dislike the fact that we are still at evolutiononary stage where the most important thing in our lives is our own little fief). But I do condemn the fact that we all seem so determined to find somewhere to cast the blame, because that is what justifies the high minded rhetoric and disguises our own self-interest. In Threads, that led to a nuclear exchange. In Israel, it leads to further violence, which may spread beyond what we are currently seeing.
My point is this; it doesn't matter who started the violence, who is historically to blame, or who is a darker shade of grey up to now on the moral scale. What matter is that it needs to stop; Ariel Sharon knows he will not stop the suicide bombs using his current tactics. Whether you support him or not, I think that this is pretty much irrefutable. Nor will Yasser Arafat ever have sufficient authority to be able to stop the suicide bombers. It is in our interests for the violence to stop because it could spread far beyond the borders of Israel. I'm getting tired of seeing people argue over semantics about the terror in Israel; pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, those who seek a secular solution, those who use religion to justify the violence, etc. None of it really matters I'm afraid. The only thing that matters is stopping the cycle of violence and terror. The only thing stopping us is that we don't see how it benefits us. So go and watch Threads. You'll start to get an idea of why I think stopping the violence in the Middle East benefits every living being on the planet.
Thursday, 11 April 2002
We're all going on a summer holiday
Looking back at this one, I struggle to remember the thread that linked these countries together in my mind. I can only assume that they were all in the news at the time for one reason or another.
Well, as the summer begins to draw near and thoughts turn to holiday destinations, I have found myself mentally crossing a few places of my holiday list over the last few weeks. Whether this says something about the places themselves, or about the fact that I actually would have liked to visit them in the first place is open to some debate...
There are five countries that have fallen from grace in my eyes in recent months. Through the choice of their leaders or just through circumstance they are rapidly turning into places that are so appalling that even CNN may drag itself away from reporting on the domestic issues of the US to spare a word or two about them. However, in the absence of the elegantly coiffured talking heads that are the mainstays of CNN, you'll have to make do with me. So let me take you on a brief tour of places around the world that really should be avoided for the foreseeable future...
Iraq:
Reasons you may have wanted to visit:
Iraq is the location of the oldest city in the world, Ur (which must have been an embarrassing place to live as everybody will have assumed you were thick when you told them where you lived), and one can also find extensive ruins of the Babylonian civilisation there. If you're a sad and slightly nerdy history buff like I am, this will be paradise to you. Failing that, you can always kid yourself that the ruins are infested with ancient demons a la the opening scene from The Exorcist. Whatever takes your fancy really.
Iraq's capital, Baghdad, is also the site of the funniest piece of graffiti that I have ever seen in my life;
"Ariel Sharon is the only world leader with two girl's names and he's a fat fuck with tits".
Not exactly subtle I agree, but the sentiment made me chuckle.
Reasons to stay the hell away:
Jesus, where do you start? Okay, if we ignore the fact that the US and UK have a real hankering to turn it into a smouldering heap so that they can have a value-for-money war for the folks back home, we still have a million and one reasons to avoid it. Not least of which is the horrendous mortality rate amongst the Iraqi people thanks to the draconian sanctions (which once were justified; now even pro-Blair UK politicians are admitting that they are not having the least effect on Saddam or his rule). In truth, I do think that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man and should certainly be stopped from producing weapons of mass destruction (his attempted genocide of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs rather effectively demonstrates this) and he most certainly shouldn't be running a country. It's just that riding roughshod over the objections of Iraq's neighbours and causing possible uproar in those countries is a stupendously arrogant, selfish, and thoughtless thing to do on the part of the UK and US.
But lest we forget, Iraq has some home grown terrors of it's own. Not least of which are the Iraqi Secret Police, who will treat you to a guided tour of certain underground complexes and give you a unique opportunity to mingle with Iraqi dissidents. You'll stay as their guest for anything between a few hours (if they're in a hurry to 'attend' to another guest) to 10 years and counting (the first US pilot to be shot down in the Gulf War may well still be alive and in Iraqi captivity; I'll leave you to ponder that image and perhaps the content of his days over the last decade).
It's a shitty place thanks to it's leadership. It's been made shittier still thanks to it's leadership and some well meaning but rather ineffective sanctions. And it will be the overactive anus of the world should Dubya get his wish and get the opportunity to finish off his daddy's business there.
Israel:
Reasons you may think it is a good place to go:
Because it's mere existence is sometimes enough to make you think that perhaps the entire human race aren't a bunch of self serving wankers with no interest beyond their next meal. In a magnificent show of collective guilt (and a certain amount of reluctance on the part of the UK) the state of Israel was created as a homeland for the Jews after WWII. They have since endured the hatred and warmongering of their Arab and Palestinian neighbours, fought some brilliantly executed wars against those who would have threatened their existence, and given Jews the opportunity for a national identity rather than being the stateless and occasionally reviled scattered people that they were. Make no mistake, the creation of Israel was and is a good thing.
Reasons why going would be extraordinarily bad:
Well, the graffiti in Iraq pretty much covers it. The hatemongering fat war criminal that currently runs the country seems to have read up about Hitler’s attempted extermination of the Jews and has liked what he read so much that he thought he'd give it a go with the Palestinians. Anyone who has read about the life of Jews in Germany in the 30's will find it impossible not to see the parallels between shoddy treatment of Jews and shoddy treatment of Palestinians. Yes, Israel has undoubtedly suffered because of the actions of terrorist groups that are funded by Moslem states. Does that mean it's okay for Palestinians to go through a reign of terror that is basically funded by western states? And does anybody seriously think that the current wave of violence will cause Yasser Arafat to simply go "Oh, ok then. We'll give up our claim to land and just go away. The breathtaking aggression of Mr. Sharon has undoubtedly caused me to accept that Israel is 100% in the right".
I only wish that the west would withdraw funding for Israel's military and the Middle East would withdraw funding for the various groups of headbangers (which is probably an inappropriate term bearing in mind all the suicide bombers; by the way kids, suicide bombers are on an Arsehole-Level equal to Ariel Sharon and his bully boys. I have great sympathy for the Palestinian cause and their desperation. I have none for people who allow themselves to throw away their lives to further the cause of one or two fanatics who care not one bit about their people, only about their precious 'cause').
Japan:
Reasons you might think "Ooh, that looks nice"
The culture of Japan is ancient and mysterious, and the people are friendly and polite. Plus the World Cup is being held there this summer.
Reasons you might think "Prince Phillip had a point"*
* Yes, I know he made the slitty-eyed crack about the Chinese; does anyone doubt he would have said the same thing in Japan? No? Good.
The World Cup is being held there this summer. Can anyone make any rough guesses about what will happen when European football thugs meet polite Japanese society? Let's just hope the army of hooligans try and pick a fight with some tattooed gentlemen who are missing their pinkie finger...
Zimbabwe:
Reasons to make Harare your holiday destination:
Can I get back to you on this one?
Reason's to put Siberia higher up the holiday list than Zimbabwe:
Well, other than the campaign of intimidation, violence, and terror that Bob Mugabe is inflicting on anybody who was unpatriotic enough to...well, vote for the opposition at the last (rigged) election...or who is subversive enough to be a journalist working for a newspaper that doesn't parrot the governmental bullshit...or who is treacherous enough to be white...other than that then I suppose maybe it would be an okay place to go. Oh, and you'd have to cope with the fact that it's economy is collapsing and taking southern Africa down with it as well. You'd possibly be a bit upset at the fact that this 'socialist' president is busy snatching huge tracts of land from white farmers and then re-distributing it exclusively to his cronies, thus ensuring that the unfair ownership of land by a few whites is replaced by the unfair ownership of land by a few blacks. But hey, we're all members of the international community so chances are you'd deal with it in the same manner that the rest of the world has; by making a few shocked exclamations about how awful it is before completely forgetting about it.
UK (bear with me on this one):
Reasons to come to this Fair Isle:
Well, cannabis may be getting decriminalised sooner rather than later. And the Queen's jubilee means that we get an extra day to party this year (and I'm hoping for maybe more as so far this year the Queen's sister has died and the Queen's mother has died; here's to bad things happening in three's...). And of course I'm quite insanely in love with this country for some reason, so I constantly encourage people to explore it's length and breadth. Preferably stopping at pubs on the way.
Reason's to cross the channel and sneer at us in French:
It's sort of shit being in the UK at the moment; we have a leadership comprising of one man and some other people who occasionally say "Yes Tony". We've got underfunded public services that make the Central African Republic think "Hey, at least our trains aren't as bad as theirs". And we have a population who couldn't give the faintest beginnings of a shit that things are getting worse, because they can't be can they? After all, we're always being told that things are getting better. I wish to God that people would pull their heads out of their backsides and pay a bit of attention to the bunch of bastards enriching themselves and feeding their own egos at our expense. And perhaps even raise a polite voice of complaint that they're shafting us. But as long as we get fed a constant diet of Pop Idol, lager, and tabloids that tell us today is like yesterday, then why bother?
I hope that my little holiday guide has helped steer you in the right direction as you browse through whatever brochures catch your eye. Me? I'm off to Glastonbury followed by some time in Amsterdam where I intend to make the most of the available opportunities for rest and relaxation. Cheers!
Well, as the summer begins to draw near and thoughts turn to holiday destinations, I have found myself mentally crossing a few places of my holiday list over the last few weeks. Whether this says something about the places themselves, or about the fact that I actually would have liked to visit them in the first place is open to some debate...
There are five countries that have fallen from grace in my eyes in recent months. Through the choice of their leaders or just through circumstance they are rapidly turning into places that are so appalling that even CNN may drag itself away from reporting on the domestic issues of the US to spare a word or two about them. However, in the absence of the elegantly coiffured talking heads that are the mainstays of CNN, you'll have to make do with me. So let me take you on a brief tour of places around the world that really should be avoided for the foreseeable future...
Iraq:
Reasons you may have wanted to visit:
Iraq is the location of the oldest city in the world, Ur (which must have been an embarrassing place to live as everybody will have assumed you were thick when you told them where you lived), and one can also find extensive ruins of the Babylonian civilisation there. If you're a sad and slightly nerdy history buff like I am, this will be paradise to you. Failing that, you can always kid yourself that the ruins are infested with ancient demons a la the opening scene from The Exorcist. Whatever takes your fancy really.
Iraq's capital, Baghdad, is also the site of the funniest piece of graffiti that I have ever seen in my life;
"Ariel Sharon is the only world leader with two girl's names and he's a fat fuck with tits".
Not exactly subtle I agree, but the sentiment made me chuckle.
Reasons to stay the hell away:
Jesus, where do you start? Okay, if we ignore the fact that the US and UK have a real hankering to turn it into a smouldering heap so that they can have a value-for-money war for the folks back home, we still have a million and one reasons to avoid it. Not least of which is the horrendous mortality rate amongst the Iraqi people thanks to the draconian sanctions (which once were justified; now even pro-Blair UK politicians are admitting that they are not having the least effect on Saddam or his rule). In truth, I do think that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man and should certainly be stopped from producing weapons of mass destruction (his attempted genocide of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs rather effectively demonstrates this) and he most certainly shouldn't be running a country. It's just that riding roughshod over the objections of Iraq's neighbours and causing possible uproar in those countries is a stupendously arrogant, selfish, and thoughtless thing to do on the part of the UK and US.
But lest we forget, Iraq has some home grown terrors of it's own. Not least of which are the Iraqi Secret Police, who will treat you to a guided tour of certain underground complexes and give you a unique opportunity to mingle with Iraqi dissidents. You'll stay as their guest for anything between a few hours (if they're in a hurry to 'attend' to another guest) to 10 years and counting (the first US pilot to be shot down in the Gulf War may well still be alive and in Iraqi captivity; I'll leave you to ponder that image and perhaps the content of his days over the last decade).
It's a shitty place thanks to it's leadership. It's been made shittier still thanks to it's leadership and some well meaning but rather ineffective sanctions. And it will be the overactive anus of the world should Dubya get his wish and get the opportunity to finish off his daddy's business there.
Israel:
Reasons you may think it is a good place to go:
Because it's mere existence is sometimes enough to make you think that perhaps the entire human race aren't a bunch of self serving wankers with no interest beyond their next meal. In a magnificent show of collective guilt (and a certain amount of reluctance on the part of the UK) the state of Israel was created as a homeland for the Jews after WWII. They have since endured the hatred and warmongering of their Arab and Palestinian neighbours, fought some brilliantly executed wars against those who would have threatened their existence, and given Jews the opportunity for a national identity rather than being the stateless and occasionally reviled scattered people that they were. Make no mistake, the creation of Israel was and is a good thing.
Reasons why going would be extraordinarily bad:
Well, the graffiti in Iraq pretty much covers it. The hatemongering fat war criminal that currently runs the country seems to have read up about Hitler’s attempted extermination of the Jews and has liked what he read so much that he thought he'd give it a go with the Palestinians. Anyone who has read about the life of Jews in Germany in the 30's will find it impossible not to see the parallels between shoddy treatment of Jews and shoddy treatment of Palestinians. Yes, Israel has undoubtedly suffered because of the actions of terrorist groups that are funded by Moslem states. Does that mean it's okay for Palestinians to go through a reign of terror that is basically funded by western states? And does anybody seriously think that the current wave of violence will cause Yasser Arafat to simply go "Oh, ok then. We'll give up our claim to land and just go away. The breathtaking aggression of Mr. Sharon has undoubtedly caused me to accept that Israel is 100% in the right".
I only wish that the west would withdraw funding for Israel's military and the Middle East would withdraw funding for the various groups of headbangers (which is probably an inappropriate term bearing in mind all the suicide bombers; by the way kids, suicide bombers are on an Arsehole-Level equal to Ariel Sharon and his bully boys. I have great sympathy for the Palestinian cause and their desperation. I have none for people who allow themselves to throw away their lives to further the cause of one or two fanatics who care not one bit about their people, only about their precious 'cause').
Japan:
Reasons you might think "Ooh, that looks nice"
The culture of Japan is ancient and mysterious, and the people are friendly and polite. Plus the World Cup is being held there this summer.
Reasons you might think "Prince Phillip had a point"*
* Yes, I know he made the slitty-eyed crack about the Chinese; does anyone doubt he would have said the same thing in Japan? No? Good.
The World Cup is being held there this summer. Can anyone make any rough guesses about what will happen when European football thugs meet polite Japanese society? Let's just hope the army of hooligans try and pick a fight with some tattooed gentlemen who are missing their pinkie finger...
Zimbabwe:
Reasons to make Harare your holiday destination:
Can I get back to you on this one?
Reason's to put Siberia higher up the holiday list than Zimbabwe:
Well, other than the campaign of intimidation, violence, and terror that Bob Mugabe is inflicting on anybody who was unpatriotic enough to...well, vote for the opposition at the last (rigged) election...or who is subversive enough to be a journalist working for a newspaper that doesn't parrot the governmental bullshit...or who is treacherous enough to be white...other than that then I suppose maybe it would be an okay place to go. Oh, and you'd have to cope with the fact that it's economy is collapsing and taking southern Africa down with it as well. You'd possibly be a bit upset at the fact that this 'socialist' president is busy snatching huge tracts of land from white farmers and then re-distributing it exclusively to his cronies, thus ensuring that the unfair ownership of land by a few whites is replaced by the unfair ownership of land by a few blacks. But hey, we're all members of the international community so chances are you'd deal with it in the same manner that the rest of the world has; by making a few shocked exclamations about how awful it is before completely forgetting about it.
UK (bear with me on this one):
Reasons to come to this Fair Isle:
Well, cannabis may be getting decriminalised sooner rather than later. And the Queen's jubilee means that we get an extra day to party this year (and I'm hoping for maybe more as so far this year the Queen's sister has died and the Queen's mother has died; here's to bad things happening in three's...). And of course I'm quite insanely in love with this country for some reason, so I constantly encourage people to explore it's length and breadth. Preferably stopping at pubs on the way.
Reason's to cross the channel and sneer at us in French:
It's sort of shit being in the UK at the moment; we have a leadership comprising of one man and some other people who occasionally say "Yes Tony". We've got underfunded public services that make the Central African Republic think "Hey, at least our trains aren't as bad as theirs". And we have a population who couldn't give the faintest beginnings of a shit that things are getting worse, because they can't be can they? After all, we're always being told that things are getting better. I wish to God that people would pull their heads out of their backsides and pay a bit of attention to the bunch of bastards enriching themselves and feeding their own egos at our expense. And perhaps even raise a polite voice of complaint that they're shafting us. But as long as we get fed a constant diet of Pop Idol, lager, and tabloids that tell us today is like yesterday, then why bother?
I hope that my little holiday guide has helped steer you in the right direction as you browse through whatever brochures catch your eye. Me? I'm off to Glastonbury followed by some time in Amsterdam where I intend to make the most of the available opportunities for rest and relaxation. Cheers!
Wednesday, 3 April 2002
Easter Bunny
Religion, along with politics, sex, and society, seems to occupy my thoughts an awful lot. Sometimes to interesting effect. Other times (like here) to a rather more pedestrian tune.
So then, the holiest days of the Christian calendar have once more come and gone. For yes, though it is Christmas that gets all the good press, Easter is the big kid on the block when it comes to sacred days. What a pity it is then that, as a festival, it's about as closely related to the death and resurrection of Christ as Michael Barrymore is to Margaret Thatcher. If anybody out there, anybody at all, can explain to me exactly where in the Bible one can find references to a giant bunny rabbit delivering chocolate eggs to children on or around the crucifixion of Christ then I will of course change my tune. But one may as well celebrate Easter by singing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" as it is just as relevant to Christianity as the current imagery used.
Okay, so perhaps I'm being a little unfair. After all, one can watch TV for more than an hour over Easter Weekend without seeing some program concerning the story of Jesus. The fact that everybody under the age of 50 switches over to whatever 'Easter Blockbuster' that they've probably already seen on cable or video at least 4 times shows the level of interest that we have in that particular story. So we all tune out of the religious propaganda that the BBC are contractually obliged to provide. Instead we are left with one or two images. Easter eggs for example. Since I was old enough to realise how marvellous chocolate was I've associated Easter with chocolate eggs and indigestion. To be honest, I can just about see a case for associating this with Christianity. After all, Jesus died and was reborn and the egg could symbolise his rebirth. Yes, I know; I'm pushing belief pretty far, but I suppose one should try to be generous.
This generosity stops there however, especially when we consider the other image that is most commonly associated with Easter; the bunny. This does seem to be more of an American thing, but it's fairly well known throughout the Christian world. And it comes from....where exactly? Did I miss a psalm somewhere? Lo, did the multitude of bunnies gather on the hill of Golgotha and provide warmth and comfort to the lord with their furry frames? Erm, no. Not exactly.
Have a little think about what rabbits usually get associated with. No, not carrots and lettuce; fucking. The phrase is, I believe, "To fuck like rabbits". Is this some sort of nod t o Mary Magdalene being of questionable morality before encountering the resurrected form of Christ? Nope; the early church was quite stunningly prudish (and still is in many respects); can you imagine them deliberately including a representative of Randy Pan the Goatboy? The Easter Bunny is only there at all because the festival has been stolen almost in it's entirety. The days get longer at this time of year. The temperatures rise (although not bloody much if you live where I do...), the mood generally lifts. Oh, and people are far more inclined to get one another into bed. As human nature isn't the most changeable of things, it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to see that what we are celebrating is a pre-Christian festival.
The Easter Bunny and the cavalcade of chocolate eggs represent fertility, both for the people and for the land (because Spring is the time of sowing and a good harvest quite literally meant the difference between life and death; where do you think the autumnal harvest festival, so beloved of the local school and parish church, originated from? It was to thank the earth for providing for them and in memory of this, school kids raid their cupboards for canned food to be sent to the church for a display. And none of them really understand why this is. I know I never did...). Christianity isn't exactly big on celebrating fertility of any kind so I'm satisfied that these images had nothing to do with them. So why are they still around? How did relics of the pagan era survive?
Probably because we want them too. We seem to have a hard time as a race letting go of traditions, beliefs, and rituals. Look, for example, at Tower Bridge and the Crown Jewels. The Ceremony of the Keys has been repeated nightly for 700 years. Why exactly? The Sword that belongs to the Commander of the Tower is encrusted with thousands of gems and holds ceremonial significance during a coronation. Yet we're a civilised and God-fearing nation; why the hell should we bother with ancient ceremonies or put stock in the use of a particular item to complete them? We like our little rituals, and Christianity (to it's credit) recognised and utilised this.
It's no accident that Easter falls at the same time as a pagan fertility festival, nor that we have an equally pagan harvest festival to give thanks for the food we receive. Christmas was bolted onto the Roman festival of Saturnalia, even All Hallows Eve has bugger all to do with the gentleman who was nailed to the planks of wood (it's an old festival called Samhain and it is most decidedly un-Christian...). Christianity took all of these existing dates in the pagan calendar and simply altered the emphasis of the festival. Hence the jollity and gift-giving of Saturnalia continued only it was done in the name of Jesus' birth rather than a marking of the year gone by. The sinister tones of Samhain became the faux frights of Halloween. It all boils down to this; same shit, different God. So next time some humourless cleric makes public declamations of how commerce has displaced the holiness of the various festivals, do as I do and shout loudly at the TV/Newspaper/The cleric himself that his precious festival had bugger all to do with God or Jesus. All that is happening is that the festivals are returning to their roots.
So then, the holiest days of the Christian calendar have once more come and gone. For yes, though it is Christmas that gets all the good press, Easter is the big kid on the block when it comes to sacred days. What a pity it is then that, as a festival, it's about as closely related to the death and resurrection of Christ as Michael Barrymore is to Margaret Thatcher. If anybody out there, anybody at all, can explain to me exactly where in the Bible one can find references to a giant bunny rabbit delivering chocolate eggs to children on or around the crucifixion of Christ then I will of course change my tune. But one may as well celebrate Easter by singing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" as it is just as relevant to Christianity as the current imagery used.
Okay, so perhaps I'm being a little unfair. After all, one can watch TV for more than an hour over Easter Weekend without seeing some program concerning the story of Jesus. The fact that everybody under the age of 50 switches over to whatever 'Easter Blockbuster' that they've probably already seen on cable or video at least 4 times shows the level of interest that we have in that particular story. So we all tune out of the religious propaganda that the BBC are contractually obliged to provide. Instead we are left with one or two images. Easter eggs for example. Since I was old enough to realise how marvellous chocolate was I've associated Easter with chocolate eggs and indigestion. To be honest, I can just about see a case for associating this with Christianity. After all, Jesus died and was reborn and the egg could symbolise his rebirth. Yes, I know; I'm pushing belief pretty far, but I suppose one should try to be generous.
This generosity stops there however, especially when we consider the other image that is most commonly associated with Easter; the bunny. This does seem to be more of an American thing, but it's fairly well known throughout the Christian world. And it comes from....where exactly? Did I miss a psalm somewhere? Lo, did the multitude of bunnies gather on the hill of Golgotha and provide warmth and comfort to the lord with their furry frames? Erm, no. Not exactly.
Have a little think about what rabbits usually get associated with. No, not carrots and lettuce; fucking. The phrase is, I believe, "To fuck like rabbits". Is this some sort of nod t o Mary Magdalene being of questionable morality before encountering the resurrected form of Christ? Nope; the early church was quite stunningly prudish (and still is in many respects); can you imagine them deliberately including a representative of Randy Pan the Goatboy? The Easter Bunny is only there at all because the festival has been stolen almost in it's entirety. The days get longer at this time of year. The temperatures rise (although not bloody much if you live where I do...), the mood generally lifts. Oh, and people are far more inclined to get one another into bed. As human nature isn't the most changeable of things, it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to see that what we are celebrating is a pre-Christian festival.
The Easter Bunny and the cavalcade of chocolate eggs represent fertility, both for the people and for the land (because Spring is the time of sowing and a good harvest quite literally meant the difference between life and death; where do you think the autumnal harvest festival, so beloved of the local school and parish church, originated from? It was to thank the earth for providing for them and in memory of this, school kids raid their cupboards for canned food to be sent to the church for a display. And none of them really understand why this is. I know I never did...). Christianity isn't exactly big on celebrating fertility of any kind so I'm satisfied that these images had nothing to do with them. So why are they still around? How did relics of the pagan era survive?
Probably because we want them too. We seem to have a hard time as a race letting go of traditions, beliefs, and rituals. Look, for example, at Tower Bridge and the Crown Jewels. The Ceremony of the Keys has been repeated nightly for 700 years. Why exactly? The Sword that belongs to the Commander of the Tower is encrusted with thousands of gems and holds ceremonial significance during a coronation. Yet we're a civilised and God-fearing nation; why the hell should we bother with ancient ceremonies or put stock in the use of a particular item to complete them? We like our little rituals, and Christianity (to it's credit) recognised and utilised this.
It's no accident that Easter falls at the same time as a pagan fertility festival, nor that we have an equally pagan harvest festival to give thanks for the food we receive. Christmas was bolted onto the Roman festival of Saturnalia, even All Hallows Eve has bugger all to do with the gentleman who was nailed to the planks of wood (it's an old festival called Samhain and it is most decidedly un-Christian...). Christianity took all of these existing dates in the pagan calendar and simply altered the emphasis of the festival. Hence the jollity and gift-giving of Saturnalia continued only it was done in the name of Jesus' birth rather than a marking of the year gone by. The sinister tones of Samhain became the faux frights of Halloween. It all boils down to this; same shit, different God. So next time some humourless cleric makes public declamations of how commerce has displaced the holiness of the various festivals, do as I do and shout loudly at the TV/Newspaper/The cleric himself that his precious festival had bugger all to do with God or Jesus. All that is happening is that the festivals are returning to their roots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)