I have great difficulty in fitting into modern social life! I am quite happy in jeans and a T-shirt, eating when I am hungry and drinking iced-tea. Appearances seem to matter and if you cannot dress in silk shirts, linen suits, and eat at French restaurants, you are obviously a misfit. But why do appearances matter if God (or Allah) knows us already? I tried all this when I was in my twenties (fifty years ago) down to gold cuff-links, Saville Row suits, white dinner jackets, Italian shoes and oval Turkish cigarettes. These days it seems to help to have a 'Porsche' too.
Yet I have been travelling and living in many different cultures for 45 years, and fit in well - because I can eat anything that is put in front of me and indeed I can become delightfully mesmerised by and excessively polite in a new culture. This is not because I am civilised, but because I would have made a good academic anthropologist.
I have to pretend to like a myriad list of modern foods and wines when I would be perfectly happy with a tuna sandwich and iced-tea. I once said at a dinner party that the food was nice, but not to worry as I could always have a sandwich when I got home! I was very young and honest in those days, and have learnt to be more circumspect as the years have gone by - although my sense of humour tends in the direction of deliberately making a 'faux-pas' in polite society - such as swearing. Actually I never swear unless as a joke or to upset someone! Those who know me can get very angry with me for deliberatly passing the wrong message!
I was once in Bangkok many years ago and was entertained well by my Thai colleagues. They seemed very nervous to receive an Englishman from London until I said I would be delighted to try Thai food. A wonderful evening! Sensing their relief I asked why. "Ah", they said, "The last Englishman from London had insisted on bacon and eggs all week". I am not like that.
I attribute my present attitudes to the old-fashioned, out-of-date, circumstances of the first 23 years of my life 1934-1957. My education was based on the Bible and Shakespeare. I was a good student and imbibed a lot rules and regulations from the New Testament, which remain with me still. Why this is so is harder to explain. These rules seem to have had singularly little effect on the rest of boys from my school. Strong drink, night clubs, women of doubtful reputation, and gambling were particularly to be damned in those far off times(but not today!).
The advent of the world war, which in Europe started in 1939 (for my American friends) meant I think that food, drink and appearances were of very low priority. That is what I learnt until rationing ended in 1957, when I was already 23! Beer seemed to be the English drink, first (warm) 'bitter' beer and then when I was at Cambridge exotic, cold, foreign 'lager' beer from Denmark. I drank beer all the time for 20 years because that was what 'real men' drank. It was only later that I realised how weak I was to conform when in fact I liked whisky or rum and coca-cola, or better still iced-tea! I rather liked drinking Chivas Regal and Coca-Cola just to upset my Scots friends! They seemed quite lacking in any sense of humour regarding whisky!
Then wine and cheeses from France and Germany began to appear about 1950. I rather like the white Algerian and German wines, but the heavier French red wines were far too bitter for me. It was fun ordering cheeses of goat, sheep or camel without quite knowing why. I am a stickler for 'port' and 'stilton' of course. That seemed to be important to British Army colonels who had to be impressed! However I persevered and for the next 40 years put up a good show at restaurants in the Chosun or Mandarin hotels while ordering wines for my customers.
So it is hardly my fault that my knowledge of how to live the 'dolce vita' is sadly lacking in sophisticated detail. I was born at the wrong time. Spaghetti should be 'al dente' and I can make a terrible fuss if it is not. But really I don't understand.
These days I maintain a facade of elegance and sophistication by a stroke of luck. I like Japanese and Korean food, and can argue those who eat French and Italian food are bit passe or declasse (no accents!).
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Official Information
I have been following the Iraq situation now for 15 years! I was actually in Riyadh during the Gulf War. The British military attache told us that we were too far away in Riyadh from Iraq to be threatened by missiles, but a scud missile from the Iraqi desert was then launched shortly after - and then almost every evening thereafter just after sunset: the launchers came out of their holes after dark. These official briefing meetings in Embassies either demonstrated the ignorance of government officials or alternatively that they knew the truth but wouldn't tell the truth in order not to alarm anyone. But that seems silly when a missile was launched anyway. Eventually a scud landed quite close to me, and for the first time I thought perhaps I ought to defend myself!
Saddam Hussein was badly advised! I would have fired 30 Scuds at Riyadh on the first night, and the whole of Riyadh would have decamped to Jeddah that very night! Luckily our leaders do not understand.
Seeing Saddam Hussein go to his death left me in two minds. Admiration that he went to his death with some dignity: A rueful acknowledgement that if someone fires a missile at me, I would reluctantly retaliate. My reaction is a measure of how uncivilised I am.
My objection today in 2007 four years after the second invasion of Iraq is that British and American politicians are mouthing excuses for their gigantic incompetence, ignorance and lack of imagination. If we are to undertake some great task, we owe it to all people to do it well. Worse, it looks to me that the people who are making these awful decisions on our behalf are not properly educated or trained in the realities of global power, nor have any real sympathy with the displaced Arab peoples, who indeed do need our help - but not this sort of help. Why is it we can spend $10 billion on war at the drop of a hat, and yet money is not available for development? If we really wish to apologise to Africa for the slave trade, then the money spent on war should be diverted to a better cause.
Beggar the thought that I could contribute to any solution to the problems of the Middle East. But sometimes I do wonder whether after 12 years in Saudi Arabia and a total of 17 years in Moslem countries, I might not have some glimmer of understanding on how to find a solution. Our existing politicians surely could not have made it worse, and yet the world is full of people these days who know the world well and sympathise in a way that our politicians do not.
So what I think is happening is that there is a disconnect between our politicians who stay at home and an international diaspora, growing ever larger and influential, who so far serve no useful function in international politics. My only consolation is that Tony Blair knows what he has done, and it shows in every new wrinkle on his face!
Saddam Hussein was badly advised! I would have fired 30 Scuds at Riyadh on the first night, and the whole of Riyadh would have decamped to Jeddah that very night! Luckily our leaders do not understand.
Seeing Saddam Hussein go to his death left me in two minds. Admiration that he went to his death with some dignity: A rueful acknowledgement that if someone fires a missile at me, I would reluctantly retaliate. My reaction is a measure of how uncivilised I am.
My objection today in 2007 four years after the second invasion of Iraq is that British and American politicians are mouthing excuses for their gigantic incompetence, ignorance and lack of imagination. If we are to undertake some great task, we owe it to all people to do it well. Worse, it looks to me that the people who are making these awful decisions on our behalf are not properly educated or trained in the realities of global power, nor have any real sympathy with the displaced Arab peoples, who indeed do need our help - but not this sort of help. Why is it we can spend $10 billion on war at the drop of a hat, and yet money is not available for development? If we really wish to apologise to Africa for the slave trade, then the money spent on war should be diverted to a better cause.
Beggar the thought that I could contribute to any solution to the problems of the Middle East. But sometimes I do wonder whether after 12 years in Saudi Arabia and a total of 17 years in Moslem countries, I might not have some glimmer of understanding on how to find a solution. Our existing politicians surely could not have made it worse, and yet the world is full of people these days who know the world well and sympathise in a way that our politicians do not.
So what I think is happening is that there is a disconnect between our politicians who stay at home and an international diaspora, growing ever larger and influential, who so far serve no useful function in international politics. My only consolation is that Tony Blair knows what he has done, and it shows in every new wrinkle on his face!
Monday, March 19, 2007
Dscrimination & Private Education
As an Englishman, and as the Welsh ploughboy I would have been 200 years ago, I have always been a bit confused at the British class system: especially as my father unaccountably paid for my education. I suspect I live in two worlds - the world of privilege and the revolutionary world of the peasants.
Many top Republican Americans also seem to have been to private schools in the USA, although why this is different from the British system I am not sure. Perhaps many WASP Americans never quite escaped from King George III after all and remain faithful to an aristocrat class system without quite realising it.
Then there is the caste system in India! Again I was never quite clear why apartheid was wrong in South Africa, but the caste system in India seemed quite acceptable to British and American governments. Certainly the high-caste Hindus I met were very pleased with their position in life and very affable people. Perhaps the British were a bit ashamed of saying anything at all against their old Indian Empire?
In some countries, old feudal systems still seem in operation. This seems to consist in a top-down authoritarian system whereby orders 'must be obeyed without question' and retired generals are often government ministers.
Now quite where democracy fits into this sort of description of modern society is also obscure. If those in command in the old democracies of America and Britian depend on large sums of private money and private education to reach the top, it suggests most of us do not get much say into what happens. I hear many British governments get elected on a minority vote of the total electorate, and then claim a mandate. It is a puzzling old world.
Many top Republican Americans also seem to have been to private schools in the USA, although why this is different from the British system I am not sure. Perhaps many WASP Americans never quite escaped from King George III after all and remain faithful to an aristocrat class system without quite realising it.
Then there is the caste system in India! Again I was never quite clear why apartheid was wrong in South Africa, but the caste system in India seemed quite acceptable to British and American governments. Certainly the high-caste Hindus I met were very pleased with their position in life and very affable people. Perhaps the British were a bit ashamed of saying anything at all against their old Indian Empire?
In some countries, old feudal systems still seem in operation. This seems to consist in a top-down authoritarian system whereby orders 'must be obeyed without question' and retired generals are often government ministers.
Now quite where democracy fits into this sort of description of modern society is also obscure. If those in command in the old democracies of America and Britian depend on large sums of private money and private education to reach the top, it suggests most of us do not get much say into what happens. I hear many British governments get elected on a minority vote of the total electorate, and then claim a mandate. It is a puzzling old world.
Scotland
I never gave it much thought fifty years ago. Scotland was a cold country far to the north, apparently usually allied to France, but my inclinations and destiny lay in other directions to the south and east. Clearly the Scots benefited from their link with England!
I have never been to Scotland, although once attached to the Pembroke Yeomanry I did fire field-guns live across the border but without any malice.
Today I see that Tony Blair has laid the groundwork for Scottish independence, and it is not altogether surprising that our predominantly Scottish government should hanker after independence. Perhaps they cannot tell us but this was part of New Labour policy all along!
I have had many Scots colleagues over the years all over the world and very able they proved to be. They do often seem to have edged out the English, which is surprising when one considers what a small population Scotland has.
So we must congratulate the SNP in advance on the success of its May campaign and look forward to a time when the English will once again assume their rightful position - if only by population numbers - in the British Isles. FREEDOM!
I have never been to Scotland, although once attached to the Pembroke Yeomanry I did fire field-guns live across the border but without any malice.
Today I see that Tony Blair has laid the groundwork for Scottish independence, and it is not altogether surprising that our predominantly Scottish government should hanker after independence. Perhaps they cannot tell us but this was part of New Labour policy all along!
I have had many Scots colleagues over the years all over the world and very able they proved to be. They do often seem to have edged out the English, which is surprising when one considers what a small population Scotland has.
So we must congratulate the SNP in advance on the success of its May campaign and look forward to a time when the English will once again assume their rightful position - if only by population numbers - in the British Isles. FREEDOM!
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Manuelita Saenz
My last and final play called "Manuelita" on Venezuela was never published as I ran out of funds after my other plays ("Sibylla", "Titus and the Gates of Syon", and "My last Farewell") found few buyers. I received some advice that I should be writing novels, and that at any rate historical plays did not have much of a global market these days. That has left "Manuelita" on the stocks, perhaps never to see the light of day. Someone may in 300 years time come across a dusty copy and reflect it mirrors 21st Century attitudes. Who knows? It might also form the basis for a spectacular South American movie!
From my years in Venezuela, I became rather fond of Manuelita, and indeed of the support that the British Legion gave for the liberation of South America from Spain! British governments these days lack imagination and don't much support freedom fighters!
Manuela was the mistress of Simon Bolivar, the Liberator of South America. As a young girl, she had a rather dubious reputation, and her father could only find an English doctor to marry her. The English often seem to be quite flexible in such intimate matters when a Latin family would have put her beyond the pale. They may have been right, but poor English Dr Thorne would have taken her back years later through all the scandals. They had no children and that may have been the root cause of what happened. Manuela was barren.
After the battle on the slopes of Mt Pinchincha in Ecuador, Manuela - Mrs Thorne - attended a ball in honour of the victory and Simon Bolivar attended, even though the battle was won by his able Venezuelan lieutenant - Jose Antonio Sucre. Simon and Manuela danced all night and eventually disappeared together into the dawn.
It was scandal, but Manuelita remained faithful to Simon Bolivar for the remaining years of his and indeed her life, and looked after his papers and his legacy.
She was disgraced by the politicians of Great Colombia and Venezuela after his death in Santa Marta on the coast of Colombia eight years later. She was sent into exile and eventually died some 30 years later of diptheria, an exile in Paita on the Peruvian cost. To live she sold cigars and sweetmeats from a small shop to the American Pacific whaling fleets, but for those who had known her in the glory years of the South American fight for freedom she remained a special friend. She is special still today! Sadly all her valuable papers were burnt after her death as diptheria was a contagious.
In 2007, I am not sure that I entirely approve of Hugo Chavez socialist policies in Venezuela, but Hugo does at least inherit this idea from Simon Bolivar that freedom is worth fighting for however you wish to define it. British troops still are entitled to march through the streets of Caracas with fixed bayonets for without the British Legion the liberty of South America might not have ever been achieved. I at least have not forgotten that, nor the Venezulan fight for freedom nor indeed Manuelita herself! It is after all only 180 years ago.
From my years in Venezuela, I became rather fond of Manuelita, and indeed of the support that the British Legion gave for the liberation of South America from Spain! British governments these days lack imagination and don't much support freedom fighters!
Manuela was the mistress of Simon Bolivar, the Liberator of South America. As a young girl, she had a rather dubious reputation, and her father could only find an English doctor to marry her. The English often seem to be quite flexible in such intimate matters when a Latin family would have put her beyond the pale. They may have been right, but poor English Dr Thorne would have taken her back years later through all the scandals. They had no children and that may have been the root cause of what happened. Manuela was barren.
After the battle on the slopes of Mt Pinchincha in Ecuador, Manuela - Mrs Thorne - attended a ball in honour of the victory and Simon Bolivar attended, even though the battle was won by his able Venezuelan lieutenant - Jose Antonio Sucre. Simon and Manuela danced all night and eventually disappeared together into the dawn.
It was scandal, but Manuelita remained faithful to Simon Bolivar for the remaining years of his and indeed her life, and looked after his papers and his legacy.
She was disgraced by the politicians of Great Colombia and Venezuela after his death in Santa Marta on the coast of Colombia eight years later. She was sent into exile and eventually died some 30 years later of diptheria, an exile in Paita on the Peruvian cost. To live she sold cigars and sweetmeats from a small shop to the American Pacific whaling fleets, but for those who had known her in the glory years of the South American fight for freedom she remained a special friend. She is special still today! Sadly all her valuable papers were burnt after her death as diptheria was a contagious.
In 2007, I am not sure that I entirely approve of Hugo Chavez socialist policies in Venezuela, but Hugo does at least inherit this idea from Simon Bolivar that freedom is worth fighting for however you wish to define it. British troops still are entitled to march through the streets of Caracas with fixed bayonets for without the British Legion the liberty of South America might not have ever been achieved. I at least have not forgotten that, nor the Venezulan fight for freedom nor indeed Manuelita herself! It is after all only 180 years ago.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Education and Competition
Society at least in the Uk seems confused! Today it was said said that children of those who have university degrees will in future be put at the bottom of the list in selection of new undergraduates. What fun! Someone somewhere is assuming that it is university education that bestows advantage and not family back ground and early fascination with life. I am beginning to think that my grandchildren before they get to the age of 5 already have a tremendous advantage in life. Perhaps babies should be removed from family control and put into a state creche to level the playing field. I am not even sure that a university degree makes much difference, and it would be something of a paradox if in 2027 most pampered university graduates were failures, while the middle class was wildly successful have been freed from the chains of conventional education. Graduate grandsons (such as myself) of Welsh peasant boys who never went to University find this all very intriguing! What exactly is the message to the children of recent graduates? I suspect the ruling classes in the UK will in future be educated in Australia and the USA. Try and stop that!
But I also thought that we tried to promote people on merit. What do we do to the unfortunates who pass entry exams and then get disqualified because of an accident of birth? Like me they become international outlaws (after only one generation of university education), not so bad for them but perhaps not good for the UK in the long run.
This then brings me to another thing that I find confusing. How far in our society can you go in wanting to win in politics or business while at the same time avoiding using one's innate education or character to tread down the competition. I do not think Tony Blair has got to the top by playing down his advantages (public school and university) but by a rather single-minded ruthlessness for the main chance. Come to think of it, it is a good idea - Children of politicians should not be allowed to go to university for two generations after reaching political power! There's method in their madness after all!
A free market system cannot operate if we tinker with underlying social trends. Clearly anyone who fights his way to the top ought to be hindered as much as possible in this brave new world. AS always who is going to do the hindering - Tony Blair, the most ruthless of all.
But I also thought that we tried to promote people on merit. What do we do to the unfortunates who pass entry exams and then get disqualified because of an accident of birth? Like me they become international outlaws (after only one generation of university education), not so bad for them but perhaps not good for the UK in the long run.
This then brings me to another thing that I find confusing. How far in our society can you go in wanting to win in politics or business while at the same time avoiding using one's innate education or character to tread down the competition. I do not think Tony Blair has got to the top by playing down his advantages (public school and university) but by a rather single-minded ruthlessness for the main chance. Come to think of it, it is a good idea - Children of politicians should not be allowed to go to university for two generations after reaching political power! There's method in their madness after all!
A free market system cannot operate if we tinker with underlying social trends. Clearly anyone who fights his way to the top ought to be hindered as much as possible in this brave new world. AS always who is going to do the hindering - Tony Blair, the most ruthless of all.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Carrying Arms
I was an expert in weapons and explosives in the UK from about the age of 15 to the time I left the Royal Artillery in 1960; perhaps I still am. I have often wondered why revolutionaries do not use more heavy artillery in their coups! However, I always felt that for me to carry arms implied I would use them if I had to. That did not seem right or Christian, so in about 1956 I sent back my last .303 Lee-Enfield rifle and some ammunition to school, and have never carried an arm since anywhere in the world. I did not keep any artillery at home! It seemed the civilised thing to do and avoided my using a weapon, rather than logic, to win an argument. I still think at the age of 72 I could take out most of the armed policement and soldiers I meet if I had to. They do not generally seem very well trained! I am also told how wonderful special forces are, and no doubt they are in good physical condition, but I am not entirely convinced they help very much from a strategic point-of-view. Anyway I suspect that being unarmed, people are nicer to me! This point-of-view perhaps also comes from an old idea in the UK that the police should not be armed, except for a truncheon, a very civilised way of running any society. Recently governments have been changing the rules on the use of violence and 'habeas corpus', and I cannot help worry that weapons training may after all be coming back as a means of self-defence.
All the above applies to the UK, but I have observed my American cousins from afar for many years and never quite understood the logic of the National Rifle Association. It may seem to protect the ordinary citizen, but also suggests Americans can be gunned down by foreigners more easily because that's what the rules say is allowed!
But of course, the rules in the USA do not say that all citizens can carry weapons, and I have never understood how Americans can argue based on the Constitution for the use of weapons by untrained ordinary citizens. I seem to remember in my own weapon training it was openly admitted that most bullets (especially from revolvers) did not hit their target!
The American Constitution actually says and I quote "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." I would agree with that preamble " a well-regulated militia", and indeed recollect that I too was an officer in the Yeomanry for six years - undoubtedly a UK militia.
So my worry today might be that it is not wise for me to be pursauded to carry arms by governments, but that seems to be the drift of the argument at present - rough justice is better than the law. I do not like the argument that says I can use force to win, perhaps because I would be very good at it!
All the above applies to the UK, but I have observed my American cousins from afar for many years and never quite understood the logic of the National Rifle Association. It may seem to protect the ordinary citizen, but also suggests Americans can be gunned down by foreigners more easily because that's what the rules say is allowed!
But of course, the rules in the USA do not say that all citizens can carry weapons, and I have never understood how Americans can argue based on the Constitution for the use of weapons by untrained ordinary citizens. I seem to remember in my own weapon training it was openly admitted that most bullets (especially from revolvers) did not hit their target!
The American Constitution actually says and I quote "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." I would agree with that preamble " a well-regulated militia", and indeed recollect that I too was an officer in the Yeomanry for six years - undoubtedly a UK militia.
So my worry today might be that it is not wise for me to be pursauded to carry arms by governments, but that seems to be the drift of the argument at present - rough justice is better than the law. I do not like the argument that says I can use force to win, perhaps because I would be very good at it!
Monday, March 12, 2007
Computer Instructions
At the age of 72, I am of course not expected to understand what is happening in the technical world of the computer. I am ashamed I cannot program. I am always worried when my younger friends often seem at a loss to answer my questions when an unexpected collapse occurs! I always suppose it is all my fault and sometimes spend hours going through my laptop to see where I made a mistake. This week I had some frights:
My laptop would not project my powerpoint slides. This seems to be the fault of the projector, but I am not sure as the technician was quite silent on the matter. He took away the laptop and returned it. Then my wifi would not work! I assume WiFi has always been'ON', but on this occasion I had to find how to switch on my wifi. Depress Fn and F1! But why should I know this when this is the first time I have ever done it! Why did he switch off my wifi without telling me?
Then suddenly I got a Hotmail message "Account closed/ Access denied"! What about all my recent work? Anyway I filled in a form and 24 hours later everything was restored without much explanation. I am still mystified!
With all this activity, as usual thinking it was my fault, I did a "system restore" without losing my info, and it all worked wonderfully and the laptop is so fast now. But I seem to be in a 2005 limbo where I am getting free 2005 offers, almost as if the programmers of 2005 and never foresaw a situation where anyone would go back to 2005!
I seem to be receiving free offers from Norton 2005. I am not quite sure what this means! I in fact discontinued Norton a year ago because I ordered some $18 update from the USA and could never load it as I got message saying "you are on the wrong circuit". This suggested that my laptop, bought in the UK and used in the Philippines is somehow 'persona non grata' in the uSA. I never got my $18 back. I could not find a way of communicating in writing with Norton even after many hours of trying.
I now suspect that I understand computers very well but that there others who do not! But I cannot program!
My laptop would not project my powerpoint slides. This seems to be the fault of the projector, but I am not sure as the technician was quite silent on the matter. He took away the laptop and returned it. Then my wifi would not work! I assume WiFi has always been'ON', but on this occasion I had to find how to switch on my wifi. Depress Fn and F1! But why should I know this when this is the first time I have ever done it! Why did he switch off my wifi without telling me?
Then suddenly I got a Hotmail message "Account closed/ Access denied"! What about all my recent work? Anyway I filled in a form and 24 hours later everything was restored without much explanation. I am still mystified!
With all this activity, as usual thinking it was my fault, I did a "system restore" without losing my info, and it all worked wonderfully and the laptop is so fast now. But I seem to be in a 2005 limbo where I am getting free 2005 offers, almost as if the programmers of 2005 and never foresaw a situation where anyone would go back to 2005!
I seem to be receiving free offers from Norton 2005. I am not quite sure what this means! I in fact discontinued Norton a year ago because I ordered some $18 update from the USA and could never load it as I got message saying "you are on the wrong circuit". This suggested that my laptop, bought in the UK and used in the Philippines is somehow 'persona non grata' in the uSA. I never got my $18 back. I could not find a way of communicating in writing with Norton even after many hours of trying.
I now suspect that I understand computers very well but that there others who do not! But I cannot program!
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Moslem Face Veil for Women (Niqab)
I, as a a man, recently spent 17 years in Moslem countries. In Malaysia, women did not cover their faces, and perhaps more surprising, even in Saudi Arabia women did not have to cover their faces. When I asked why, I was told that the Koran did not say that faces of women had to be covered. Most Saudi Arabian women did cover their faces, but this seemed more to do with local tribal practice, culture and the dominance of men than any religious precept. Bedouin women out in the deep desert did not cover their faces and drove camels (not cars).
I am not sure it worries me one way or another how women dress. However I would like to know what rules really apply! From my years in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, I thought I had a clear statement of the rules. But recent arguments in England suggest many Moslem women in England are applying rules of dress that are not accepted by many Moslem countries. It looks as if whether to wear a veil or not is purely a personal decision obeying a personal rule - not clearly set out in the Koran (rather like choosing the colour of a lipstick). It therefore looks as if religious rules are being formulated that cannot be justified by reference to Koran - or if so justified by personal interpretation not supported by scholarly study. All this might also demonstrate the excessive English regard for enforcing rules in society; when in many societies rules are very flexible and not always enforced. Why should a global discussion on wearing the 'niqab' take place in England when the proper place ought to be in the Moslem world?
I also note one or two recent incidents where Moslem men have disappeared abroad by air, wearing women's clothes and the veil in order to evade arrest while under criminal investigation. This also suggests rules change according to circumstance. Are Moslem men really allowed to wear women's clothes if they want to and why does no one protest if they do so?
I was brought up 60 years ago under a rather British 'gentlemanly' code of conduct where women were to be treated with considerable respect. I need to be informed today as to what Moslem women are being protected against in a Moslem society which at first sight seems to have strict rules for relationships between men and women. Why does a veil help in all this?
In order for those of us in the West to understand better what rules are being applied across the whole Moslem world, I think we need much clearer guidance and explanation. What is happening at the moment appears to an outsider to be a matter of purely personal choice, ungoverned by religious rules that we can can understand. (or am I betraying an English cultural attitude that puts too much emphasis on strict interpretaton of rules which really don't matter much elsewhere!).
I am not sure it worries me one way or another how women dress. However I would like to know what rules really apply! From my years in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, I thought I had a clear statement of the rules. But recent arguments in England suggest many Moslem women in England are applying rules of dress that are not accepted by many Moslem countries. It looks as if whether to wear a veil or not is purely a personal decision obeying a personal rule - not clearly set out in the Koran (rather like choosing the colour of a lipstick). It therefore looks as if religious rules are being formulated that cannot be justified by reference to Koran - or if so justified by personal interpretation not supported by scholarly study. All this might also demonstrate the excessive English regard for enforcing rules in society; when in many societies rules are very flexible and not always enforced. Why should a global discussion on wearing the 'niqab' take place in England when the proper place ought to be in the Moslem world?
I also note one or two recent incidents where Moslem men have disappeared abroad by air, wearing women's clothes and the veil in order to evade arrest while under criminal investigation. This also suggests rules change according to circumstance. Are Moslem men really allowed to wear women's clothes if they want to and why does no one protest if they do so?
I was brought up 60 years ago under a rather British 'gentlemanly' code of conduct where women were to be treated with considerable respect. I need to be informed today as to what Moslem women are being protected against in a Moslem society which at first sight seems to have strict rules for relationships between men and women. Why does a veil help in all this?
In order for those of us in the West to understand better what rules are being applied across the whole Moslem world, I think we need much clearer guidance and explanation. What is happening at the moment appears to an outsider to be a matter of purely personal choice, ungoverned by religious rules that we can can understand. (or am I betraying an English cultural attitude that puts too much emphasis on strict interpretaton of rules which really don't matter much elsewhere!).
Excessive Global Population
I started corresponding on the subject of excessive global population about 10 years ago with a letter in an Asian Magazine! I argued then and argue now that the problem of the world population reaching 6.6 billion people in 2007 is not that a large population of itself is bad, but that human beings are negligent and even ignorant in bringing so many extra mouths to feed and educate into the world when the resources are not available. It is partly an argument on contraception, but stated plainly, men and women should not have children that they cannot look after and plan for. How they do that is their own affair The fault lies not in a mere statistic of 6.6 billion, but in the inability of human beings to plan ahead for all those extra children.
The (Christian) religious view seems to be that we are ordered 'to go forth and multiply'. We seem to be good at doing that! But another translation say 'go forth and replenish the earth' (after the flood?). There is a great difference between 'multiplying for ever' in an already crowded world and 'replenishing' an empty earth.
Now I am assuming that I have some personal (protestant?)responsibility for putting things right and leaving the earth a healthy and prosperous place. But it has slowly dawned upon me that I am arguing at cross-purposes with my Roman Catholic friends. I think they take the view that God's plan is unfolding as it ought to do, and they are not going to interfere at all with what happens - even if millions are to die in the meantime. That must be a part of God's plan, mustn't it. That is an excellent argument for doing nothing.
There is the rather more sophisticated Christian (theological) argument that an omnipotent God has no need of us at all and no amount of good deeds can save the individual - only God' grace can do that and in that we have no say at all. He will save whom he wants to save for reasons of His own. This view is not expounded very clearly to the faithful on most Sundays, who often remain in ignorance that good deeds do not help very much!
Similarly, one might argue that death is a minor incident on the road to eternity, so even a few deaths from negligence or indeed from assassination do not deserve much punishment, as God at any time can restore the status quo ante! In certain hands this must be perceived (by guilty governments?) as a licence to use violence!
So when I worry that very soon the global population will reach 7 billion souls and feel I ought to do something about it, I represent a tradition that is at logger-heads with Roman and Anglican Christianity - I think we are not helpless while they think that what happens is God's will and there is nothing they can do except obey the rules. (and however wicked they may have been, there is still a good chance they will be forgiven because forgiveness has nothing to with behaviour and conduct, but with 'grace').
So while my idea is that I have a responsibility to solve problems, I am faced with a contrary argument that if there is an excessive global population, God's remedies will be brought into play - pestilence and plague, famine and drought, and finally war and violence. These weapons to be deployed by God for solving excessive population are certainly very effective and will indeed solve the problem. I am left feeling a certain sense of horror (in the real meaning of the word) that I am free to watch millions upon millions of children die without a qualm of conscience. I hear the theological argument that the responsibility is not mine but God's!
And then I have the practical problem of my own conduct. I look after seven grandchildren of my wife. I love them even though I have no blood relationship with them. On the arguments presented above, I get the nmessage that I could abandon them at a moment's notice as money dwindles away. What happens to them will be God's will. I need not to worry - whether they live or die, I have no responsibility, -------or do I? I am my brother's keeper!
The (Christian) religious view seems to be that we are ordered 'to go forth and multiply'. We seem to be good at doing that! But another translation say 'go forth and replenish the earth' (after the flood?). There is a great difference between 'multiplying for ever' in an already crowded world and 'replenishing' an empty earth.
Now I am assuming that I have some personal (protestant?)responsibility for putting things right and leaving the earth a healthy and prosperous place. But it has slowly dawned upon me that I am arguing at cross-purposes with my Roman Catholic friends. I think they take the view that God's plan is unfolding as it ought to do, and they are not going to interfere at all with what happens - even if millions are to die in the meantime. That must be a part of God's plan, mustn't it. That is an excellent argument for doing nothing.
There is the rather more sophisticated Christian (theological) argument that an omnipotent God has no need of us at all and no amount of good deeds can save the individual - only God' grace can do that and in that we have no say at all. He will save whom he wants to save for reasons of His own. This view is not expounded very clearly to the faithful on most Sundays, who often remain in ignorance that good deeds do not help very much!
Similarly, one might argue that death is a minor incident on the road to eternity, so even a few deaths from negligence or indeed from assassination do not deserve much punishment, as God at any time can restore the status quo ante! In certain hands this must be perceived (by guilty governments?) as a licence to use violence!
So when I worry that very soon the global population will reach 7 billion souls and feel I ought to do something about it, I represent a tradition that is at logger-heads with Roman and Anglican Christianity - I think we are not helpless while they think that what happens is God's will and there is nothing they can do except obey the rules. (and however wicked they may have been, there is still a good chance they will be forgiven because forgiveness has nothing to with behaviour and conduct, but with 'grace').
So while my idea is that I have a responsibility to solve problems, I am faced with a contrary argument that if there is an excessive global population, God's remedies will be brought into play - pestilence and plague, famine and drought, and finally war and violence. These weapons to be deployed by God for solving excessive population are certainly very effective and will indeed solve the problem. I am left feeling a certain sense of horror (in the real meaning of the word) that I am free to watch millions upon millions of children die without a qualm of conscience. I hear the theological argument that the responsibility is not mine but God's!
And then I have the practical problem of my own conduct. I look after seven grandchildren of my wife. I love them even though I have no blood relationship with them. On the arguments presented above, I get the nmessage that I could abandon them at a moment's notice as money dwindles away. What happens to them will be God's will. I need not to worry - whether they live or die, I have no responsibility, -------or do I? I am my brother's keeper!
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Slavery, Employees and Servants
When a large company spends money to take over another, it acquires all the employees and managers at the same time. Well, of course they are free to resign so it's not really slavery, but even so no employee is consulted, and so one might imagine at first sight that people are being put up for sale - without compensation.
Many people in Asia, South America and Africa have servants. Why do rich countries have no servants while servants are in abundance in poor countries. At first sight a bit of a paradox. Servants are paid very little - may be US$100 per month - and some are too ignorant to want to escape. Are these people happy at living such a life. I don't think so! But the people who employ servants are quite pleased with their standard of living - all cleaning, cooking, driving and washing are done by servants. It is a wonderful advantage, not usually available to most people in the USA or Europe. I confess I do like having my laundry done every day! One of the reasons the developing world does not change is that the standard of living of the top 20% in any developing nation is much higher than in USA and Europe. Who would want to change in such circumstances? I suspect this lack of interest in change also stems from the international community which supports the status quo. Governments and diplomats do not support change and after 50 years of waiting I still detect a reluctance to change. National sovereignty is still the guiding light for international affairs - whatever disasters may occur. Originally I used to think that change did not take place because of incompetence, negligence and ignorance. Now I am not sure! The third world does not get better because that's the way the rich and powerful like it!
I would agree that when the British abolished slavery and used the British fleet to supress the trade, they at last recognised that slavery was a stain on human nature. I am less sure that apologising for events more than 200 years old really helps much. It seems that men of all races were engaged in the slave trade. It was a feature of how uncivilised we all were only quite recently. One wonders how Tony Blair can apologise for the British participation in slavery when he steadfastly refuses to apologise for the chaos that has occured in Iraq. A future British prime minister undoubtedly will apologise, but not yet! Indeed I do take the argument that Romans rules Britain for 300 years, and the Normans made England a French colony for the same time. The English came from North Germany and perhaps should go back, and what about the Americans returning to Europe and apologising too. It is all too utopian to mean anything. So if the world is like it is, it is because that's the way we like it. It has not happened by chanc!
Many people in Asia, South America and Africa have servants. Why do rich countries have no servants while servants are in abundance in poor countries. At first sight a bit of a paradox. Servants are paid very little - may be US$100 per month - and some are too ignorant to want to escape. Are these people happy at living such a life. I don't think so! But the people who employ servants are quite pleased with their standard of living - all cleaning, cooking, driving and washing are done by servants. It is a wonderful advantage, not usually available to most people in the USA or Europe. I confess I do like having my laundry done every day! One of the reasons the developing world does not change is that the standard of living of the top 20% in any developing nation is much higher than in USA and Europe. Who would want to change in such circumstances? I suspect this lack of interest in change also stems from the international community which supports the status quo. Governments and diplomats do not support change and after 50 years of waiting I still detect a reluctance to change. National sovereignty is still the guiding light for international affairs - whatever disasters may occur. Originally I used to think that change did not take place because of incompetence, negligence and ignorance. Now I am not sure! The third world does not get better because that's the way the rich and powerful like it!
I would agree that when the British abolished slavery and used the British fleet to supress the trade, they at last recognised that slavery was a stain on human nature. I am less sure that apologising for events more than 200 years old really helps much. It seems that men of all races were engaged in the slave trade. It was a feature of how uncivilised we all were only quite recently. One wonders how Tony Blair can apologise for the British participation in slavery when he steadfastly refuses to apologise for the chaos that has occured in Iraq. A future British prime minister undoubtedly will apologise, but not yet! Indeed I do take the argument that Romans rules Britain for 300 years, and the Normans made England a French colony for the same time. The English came from North Germany and perhaps should go back, and what about the Americans returning to Europe and apologising too. It is all too utopian to mean anything. So if the world is like it is, it is because that's the way we like it. It has not happened by chanc!
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Destruction of Jerusalem AD 70
Another play I wrote in Riyadh was called "Titus at the Gates of Syon" - ISBN 0 75410 572 5. My reading of history had often brought me up against the 'diaspora' of the Jewish peoples, and my interest in the film 'Ivanhoe', the pogroms of the Crusades, and then the expulsion of the Jews (and Moslems) from Spain in AD 1492 kept the idea alive in my mind. And then I suppose the (fiction) book 'The Da Vinci Code' also revived interest in what exactly happened in the years after the crucifixion. It is such a complex and terrible story that even now is not yet over. I had also become interested in Vespasian and his son Titus! Vespasian was in command of the Second Augusta Legion in AD 43 for the invasion of Britain, and I, as an Englishman, have stood on the ramparts of Maiden Castle in Dorset, England where Vespasian himself must have stood after the assault on the British (Welsh) stronghold had succeeded. (What happened in the first 300 years in the development of Christianity is still a fascinating question and may not have much to do with the austere teachings of Jesus himself).
In AD 66, the XII Legion under the command of Cestius Gallus were set upon by the Jewish army outside the walls of Jerusalem and routed with stragglers eventually getting away to the coast at Caesarea. This affront to Roman honour could not be accepted. The Emperor Nero sent - who? - of course now old Vespasian to settle matters with the Jewish people. On Nero's suicide, four men became emperor in a single year, but Vespasian won out, and became emperor
Titus won the war against the Jews with five legions deployed in the field, dismantled Jerusalem and sent its people into exile. Only Massada held out heroically for another three year before all its garrison committed suicide. My play is the story of the fall of Jerusalem and to some extent the story of Josephus, the Jewish general, who went over to the Romans and wrote extensively on the history of the period! (I have always wondered why I was not taught this at school. Perhaps it was too sensitive a subject for young Christian boys to be allowed to read!)
I find all this fascinating as it seems to me we are reaching a watershed in world history where the events of the last 2000 years were always safely separated by distance. This cannot continue as distance now has no meaning and disparate ideas and faiths are now coming into close proximity to each other (eye-ball to eye-ball!). These will have to fight it out to find out where the true faith really lies - it is by no means certain that anyone knows the answer to such a question.
In AD 66, the XII Legion under the command of Cestius Gallus were set upon by the Jewish army outside the walls of Jerusalem and routed with stragglers eventually getting away to the coast at Caesarea. This affront to Roman honour could not be accepted. The Emperor Nero sent - who? - of course now old Vespasian to settle matters with the Jewish people. On Nero's suicide, four men became emperor in a single year, but Vespasian won out, and became emperor
Titus won the war against the Jews with five legions deployed in the field, dismantled Jerusalem and sent its people into exile. Only Massada held out heroically for another three year before all its garrison committed suicide. My play is the story of the fall of Jerusalem and to some extent the story of Josephus, the Jewish general, who went over to the Romans and wrote extensively on the history of the period! (I have always wondered why I was not taught this at school. Perhaps it was too sensitive a subject for young Christian boys to be allowed to read!)
I find all this fascinating as it seems to me we are reaching a watershed in world history where the events of the last 2000 years were always safely separated by distance. This cannot continue as distance now has no meaning and disparate ideas and faiths are now coming into close proximity to each other (eye-ball to eye-ball!). These will have to fight it out to find out where the true faith really lies - it is by no means certain that anyone knows the answer to such a question.
Democracy Today
I have never really understood what we mean by 21st century democracy. It seems a far cry from rule by the people. I was treasurer once of the Kingson-upon-Thames local Liberal party. But I am not sure how I could have risen in the UK system once overseas! I have always done my best to ensure that the people suffer the consequences of their decisions. But perhaps I am taking too harsh a view of my own responsibilities!
Recently I have begun to wonder whether our politicians are really properly educated to the realities of the modern world - or even that I might not do it better! They may be quite expert on what is happening in Sunderland (where is that?) but I have the impression that they have very little experience of South America, the Middle East, or Asia where they are expected to make grave and difficult decisions for all of us. Indeed the world is full of people with the most wonderful education and overseas experience who do not seem to be consulted at all. Not surprisingly things go wrong when our politicians know nothing about history, science, foreign cultures and globalisation.
When I first sailed in 1955 (to Barfleur to a very foreign France), I had thought I was following an old tradition that the British travelled and I called myself British in those days! Fifty years later after living in Venezuela, South Korea, Philippines, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia - and of course England, I now have the feeling I am not really wanted in the UK. Certainly when I retired in 1984, no one offered me a job back home.
This feeling has been reinforced by the British government discounting any idea of British culture (for those of us who go back 1000 years) and the withdrawal of voting rights, of access to education, medical help and a new definition that only residents of the UK (not citizens) have any rights. The water is muddied of course because we in the UK are not sure whether we are citizens or subjects of the Queen (subjects have no say in going to war while citizens might have).
It troubles me that loyalty and patriotism now count for so little. Not for myself, as I am quite able to defend myself almost anywhere, but for the impact of the increasing numbers who do not know where they come from. I sympathise with the young Moslems in the UK, who live culturally in mostly Pakistan, but are expected to be British all at the same time - they get little sympathy from a confused government!I feel the same. How wonderful it is that only very small groups actually engage in violence in a hostile world (of 6.5 billion peaceful people). If there was widespread active enmity, there would be hundreds involved when in fact it only a tiny minority of disturbed boys not sure what to do with an excess of testosterone, who are violent - very few indeed.
But the situation cannot improve if those who become contaminated by foreign cultures become outlaws in our own countries at a time when our politicians are quite ignorant, and yet promote an international rule in their own interests where they do not want democracy to exist. Recent developments in international law where suspects are held for 5 years without trial or governments, where limited torture is permitted, and where they go to war without the support of their own peoples is worrying. What does a convinced democrat do in a world where the international world is lawless?
I call myself English these days, but that is just a pleasing fancy in the last decade of my life. The last 2000 years of history are coming to an end for the Anglo-Saxons. My children and grandchildren are partly English, Venezuelan, Italian, Mexican and Filipino. For what just causes are they going to fight and what force are they entitled to use to achieve a better world? I am training them now. You must tell me.
Recently I have begun to wonder whether our politicians are really properly educated to the realities of the modern world - or even that I might not do it better! They may be quite expert on what is happening in Sunderland (where is that?) but I have the impression that they have very little experience of South America, the Middle East, or Asia where they are expected to make grave and difficult decisions for all of us. Indeed the world is full of people with the most wonderful education and overseas experience who do not seem to be consulted at all. Not surprisingly things go wrong when our politicians know nothing about history, science, foreign cultures and globalisation.
When I first sailed in 1955 (to Barfleur to a very foreign France), I had thought I was following an old tradition that the British travelled and I called myself British in those days! Fifty years later after living in Venezuela, South Korea, Philippines, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia - and of course England, I now have the feeling I am not really wanted in the UK. Certainly when I retired in 1984, no one offered me a job back home.
This feeling has been reinforced by the British government discounting any idea of British culture (for those of us who go back 1000 years) and the withdrawal of voting rights, of access to education, medical help and a new definition that only residents of the UK (not citizens) have any rights. The water is muddied of course because we in the UK are not sure whether we are citizens or subjects of the Queen (subjects have no say in going to war while citizens might have).
It troubles me that loyalty and patriotism now count for so little. Not for myself, as I am quite able to defend myself almost anywhere, but for the impact of the increasing numbers who do not know where they come from. I sympathise with the young Moslems in the UK, who live culturally in mostly Pakistan, but are expected to be British all at the same time - they get little sympathy from a confused government!I feel the same. How wonderful it is that only very small groups actually engage in violence in a hostile world (of 6.5 billion peaceful people). If there was widespread active enmity, there would be hundreds involved when in fact it only a tiny minority of disturbed boys not sure what to do with an excess of testosterone, who are violent - very few indeed.
But the situation cannot improve if those who become contaminated by foreign cultures become outlaws in our own countries at a time when our politicians are quite ignorant, and yet promote an international rule in their own interests where they do not want democracy to exist. Recent developments in international law where suspects are held for 5 years without trial or governments, where limited torture is permitted, and where they go to war without the support of their own peoples is worrying. What does a convinced democrat do in a world where the international world is lawless?
I call myself English these days, but that is just a pleasing fancy in the last decade of my life. The last 2000 years of history are coming to an end for the Anglo-Saxons. My children and grandchildren are partly English, Venezuelan, Italian, Mexican and Filipino. For what just causes are they going to fight and what force are they entitled to use to achieve a better world? I am training them now. You must tell me.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Access Denied
I am two days late in writing because I got an unexpected message from 'hotmail' saying "account closed/access denied"! I filled in a form and 24 hours later I got another message saying; please carry on, no problem. Being me, by then I had gone through my laptop with a toothcombe and "system restored", checkdisked and am now back to 2005! If I have a heart-attack at age 72 in the next two days it will be due to the stress I have undergone!
I see also that my username is in fact my email address. For days I have been putting in my own name. No wonder I could not connect, but feel instructions are not very clear. I must now collect my thoughts and go back to the real world.
I see also that my username is in fact my email address. For days I have been putting in my own name. No wonder I could not connect, but feel instructions are not very clear. I must now collect my thoughts and go back to the real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)