As we were driven from the Bengal plains into the mountains above Siliguri in our aircon 4WD by a happy Gorkha, I was thinking of how strenuous this journey must have been in the early 1830's, when Arthur Campbell, Surgeon, British East India Company Forces went in search of a Hill Station.
The British created hill stations all over the empire to enable the British high command to continue ruling from a healthy air condition office during summer months.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Kolkata: The Last Ambassador
As we walk Kolkata, nothing is more ubiquitous than the sight and sounds of the yellow taxis.
The past British domination echoes from every curve of their bodies and beep of their horns. Although made new up until 2011 by Hindustan Motors and called the Ambassador Classic, they have remained a very close copy of the 1956 Morris Oxford II.
In 2011, they could not meet more stringent pollution standards and Hindustan Motors is now going broke fast.
I have confidence that economic necessity will force the poor taxi drivers to keep them serving as British ambassadors on the streets of Kolkata for at least another decade.
The past British domination echoes from every curve of their bodies and beep of their horns. Although made new up until 2011 by Hindustan Motors and called the Ambassador Classic, they have remained a very close copy of the 1956 Morris Oxford II.
In 2011, they could not meet more stringent pollution standards and Hindustan Motors is now going broke fast.
I have confidence that economic necessity will force the poor taxi drivers to keep them serving as British ambassadors on the streets of Kolkata for at least another decade.
Transported by the Well Diggers Daughter
The Well Diggers Daughter is the most recent film remake of the work of novelist film-maker Marcel Pagnol.
His novels and films evoke the rich beauty of the French countryside and the interplay of the material environment, distant war, cultural values and personality.
I normally consider films as creations that warrant less serious consideration than text, but the sequence of Pagnol films that I have watched so far have left impressions on me as powerful as any novel.
In other films, the short time frame available often results in characters being redrawn as caricature. A person or a cultural value needs to be the "baddie" - the evil cause of the problem. Redeeming features of the "baddy" risk confusion and reduced emotional impact.
This film is a delightful piece of literature in motion - as well as a starting point for planning a trip to rural France !
I look forward to more remakes as well as watching his originals as well.
For the term of his natural life (Marcus Clark)
History through fiction: Stranger than truth
An enjoyable trip into a literary style presumably typical of Australia in the 1870's. The language and the unlikely coincidences and behaviours on which the plot depends add to my sense of a period morality play. Nevertheless, the detail of the description of both the treatment of convicts and the physical locations adds great power and interest.
I often read "historical novels" specifically to gain a more intimate sense of the personal experience. I try to select authors based on evidence that they have done serious research or are generally expert in the era. I am sure that this trust is often misplaced as all authors serve their art before the truth. I canot even say that the best of artists create art closely around the truth e.g. the political propoganda built into Shakespeare's brilliant plays such as Richard III.
When interested in historical topic, I try to add vicarious experience to the wikipedia articles (Yes, I trust them !) by reading historical novels that I beleive are based on the artists best effort at accurate and objective research. It seems trite to focus on the general brutality of the times as compared to the present, as Clarke seems to do even about events so comparatively recent to him. The times were brutal - the experience of navy sailors, the experience of injured commanders, the experience of any person suffering from disease or starvation. The behaviour of penal institutions need to put into the context of the common experiences of the times.
Clarke seems to have done research on the recent past in Australia and Tasmania, and makes an attempt to balance of characters and events on both sides of the prison door while passionately expounding on the unfairness of fate and the susceptibility of any power to corruption.
Burning to read: Enslaved to the text
Highly recommend this fascinating book. Only half way through Chapter 4 and have 30 bookmarks !
Some favourite excerpts...
P48 English Royal proclamation of 1530...by [...well-learned ... in divinity].. it is thought hat it is not necessary the said Scriptures to be in the English tongue and in the hands of the common people, but that the distribution of of he said Scripture, and he premitting or denying thereof, dependeth only upon the discretion of the superiors, as they shall think it convenient.
Thinks: As a public servant, I recognise this view as unchanged from that day to this i.e. i see this approach implemented at every level of our government from school administration, to government minister. The truism "Information is power" (Robert Morgan) has always been known to successful rulers. This example is only one of a billion. The key issue is the evaluation of why this particular meme
p.76 From the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, annual confession for each Christian...became compulsory. That legislation marked a decisive new step in the history of both self-analysis and ethics.... This is the basis of the three parts of the sacrament as listed by More: contrition of the heart, confession of the mouth, and satisfaction, or repayment for sins committed.
p.78 The premis of the sacrament is that the Christian's works can, within the gracefully mediated terms of gods justice, change the sinners situation: One can persuade God through verbally articulated contrition for sin committed and social repayment for that sin, to readmit one into the compny of the absolved. The institution of the church is the indispensable channel through which the negotiation is made, via a priest.
P83 Late medieval Christian theologians had constructed a theology that gave full recognition to two opposing traditions: the positivist, hebraic tradition of God's absolute justice, and the Graeco-Roman notion of a divine reliability and rationality, perceptible to humans.
P81 The soul imagined by Luther ... confronts the terror of God's judgement alone ....
P84 [In Luther's schema].. a sense of individuality rises dramatically in profile precisely because ... it confronts a single and menacing source of absolute power [i.e. God]
p85 In Western cultural history, writing is usually opposed to faith, or at least is a compensation for want of faith: one writes the contract down precisely because there's a shortfall in faith. Oral culture relies primarily on witnesses, while literate culture gives primacy to documents.
P85 In the Lutheran system, ...the book has become the repository of faith, unsustained by any surrounding structure.
Thinks: How many of the followers of Luther actually considered these arguments ? The leadership groups in political parties are tortured by semantic detail while the mass of voters and even supporters merely mouth the current orthodoxy as passed onto them. The Bible could therefore stand merely as an artefact whose interpretation is infinitely malleable according to the dominant orthodoxy. The interpretation at any time evolves as political buttons are pushed and the cultural response measured - 1000 peasants and 1 prince might like one interpretation; 50 princes and no peasants might like another. Luther picks an interpretation that fits the time and his purpose.
In a thousand years, scholars may analyse the sectarian debates in the "Middle East" seeking answers to the conflagrations that occurred. I would suggest that the real causes and controls on the paths of history could be the smell of burning flesh and the propaganda screamed in a temple or school, rather than the written words. The intellectual arguments are for the leaders to dress themselves in when talking to other leaders. They are not leaders because of this one set of intellectual clothes. Leadership stems from the chameleon ability to be many things to many people through touch rather than text; through presence rather than print; through actions that rarely match words....
To be continued.....
Enough Said
Response to "The Necessity of Scepticism Backlash and Backtrack" By Edward Said CounterPunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/) September 28, 2001
Academics have the primary task of investigating theoretical boundaries, analysing absolutes, describing aspects of perfection. This is enough, surely. Unfortunately no. The social importance of academia also extends to connecting the theoretical with the practical, the past with the present. The greatest have the courage to take a final step and act or at least propose action in the scale of everyday life. This requires courage because all practical, immediate and everyday action occurs amongst the murky grey of morally contradictory options. The ivory tower by its very nature is (and should be) a place above these considerations. To come down from the tower but retain its perspective is dangerous but also an opportunity to truly lead.
I find Edward Said’s contribution facile in this light.
In the above, article, he describes a sad side effect of generalisation as it applies to Muslims in the USA. I would have expected more analysis of how all people generalise - most importantly about people based on every possible difference such as appearance, speech, and opinion. I would have hoped for recognition that such generalisations are made in many countries against Americans with at least equally brutal results. I would have hoped that the analysis had revealed some principles that distinguish good generalisations from those that are evil.
Evil – a word that I am glad to see re-enter the lexicon, because it injects a morality back into the equation. The word “good” has become merely a measure of the advantage of one over another – “good for whom ?”. Most people would generalise about large tattooed leather jacketed loud bikies in a dark alley on Saturday night, and take another route. Many would discriminate against them in the light of day during an employment interview. Most people generalise on the basis of race and nationality. The Germans are said to lack a sense of humour. The French are said to be great lovers. Ask yourself honestly whether you have used or left such statements unchallenged. I frequently read and hear generalisations about the USA and “Americans” used by highly educated and intelligent people despite their obvious inaccuracy when predicting the personality or performance of any individual. Generalisation becomes evil when it harms the innocent. Yet this occurs constantly to different degrees. The only antidote to incorrect generalisation is exposure to variety. From my exposure, the press is working hard on prominent stories of patriotic Muslims and Arabs. Unfortunately, the coverage also reveals more Muslims and Arabs who do wish nothing but death to the USA.
The events of September 11 2001 were acts of war. The choice of targets, the absence of any demand before destruction, but most of all the scale has elevated them beyond the “ordinary” terrorist act. In a state at war, many will incorrectly generalise that all dissent equals disloyalty.
The enemy has not declared itself. Nor has it stated any aims. This enemy holds to no rules, least of all the bizarre idea of the rules of war. Every US citizen and most of the rest of the world is looking for the enemy. When we look, we see differences and similarities. In a state of war, many will incorrectly generalise that if you dress (or speak, or have a complexion) like known enemies, then you are one.
So what can we ask of US citizens ?
Edward Said asks that they “grasp the main long range hope” which is a “community of conscience and understanding” which requires US citizens to do some “decent back-tracking”. He wants them to “place the horrors of what occurred on 11 September in a context that includes US actions”. He shows gross insensitivity and foolishness by talking of “our main weapons as Arabs” being moral arguments.
Intellectually, morally and politically these attitudes are disastrous.
So what can we ask of US citizens ?
We can ask citizens of the USA to continue their support for international involvement. Their economic and military supremacy on the planet gives them both responsibility and opportunity. Many of their critics are constantly pointing out new responsibilities that require the commitment of US lives and resources. We did not see Arab states rushing to the aid of persecuted Muslims in the Baltic. US citizens in my experience have a sober (but sometimes weary) acceptance of this role. Opportunities also flow from these involvements as they have always done throughout recorded history. There is and should always be a debate about balancing this quid pro quo because there have been, and will be, immoral excesses. But it is laughable to say all opportunities flowing from these involvements are inherently immoral.
We can ask citizens of the USA to continue their support for individual freedom at home and abroad. The USA has, on balance, contributed more than any other nation in history to a higher consciousness and experience of freedom. I would challenge Edward Said to denounce the extreme oppression that exists under Muslim influence throughout the world as a counterpoint to his worries about the “erosion of civil liberties” in the USA. The rulers of most countries represented in the United Nations do not believe in individual freedom. Intellectuals should contribute to the debate on what constitutes freedom and what are the threats to it. In my view, the greatest threat to freedom on the planet is growth – both population and production. But that is another story. Currently, in the USA, the greatest enemy of freedom is fear. The debate must be about how much freedom needs to be sacrificed to reduce the terror. This balance is different in every country, in every road, in every building. The next attack will not be from a plane.
We can ask citizens of the USA to support international involvement and individual freedom by sacrificing some of their sons and daughters as well as a huge amount of money and materials on supporting change in countries throughout the world. This requires a vision that many will not share. An acceptance that there will be tragic mistakes and that the task will often be thankless.
So why do it ?
By putting everyone in Australia to work, the incidence of crime and drug abuse would vastly reduce. But I could give no guarantee that an unemployed drug addict would not murder your mother on the way home. Similarly, if all governments on earth observed minimum standards of democracy and individual freedom, or if all people were fed clothed and housed to a minimum standard, then the number of extremists of all persuasions would be vastly reduced. But, I could give no guarantee that a religious fanatic would not blow up your mother on the way home. I could probably have more success reducing crime, drug addiction and extremism by applying one brand of extremism worldwide. The sad life history of my imaginary unemployed drug addicted killer is an explanation not an excuse, and in my world he would be summarily executed in a humane manner. Likewise the fanatical bomber. If these events became a repeating pattern, it would provoke a search for policies that may prevent others from following the same fatal path.
An international coalition should have two tasks that may be undertaken simultaneously, but should not be confused. First, the infection needs to be removed.
We can ask citizens of the USA to encourage and support an international coalition that will eliminate terrorists in any country preferably with the cooperation of the infected host nation. This has begun. Where host nations refuse to cooperate then all means of influence should be brought to bear patiently, humanely, creatively and inexorably e.g. economic inducement or threat, military inducement or threat, support for alternative governments etc. Where direct military action is considered necessary, it should be taken with a view to moving responsibility as soon as possible to nationals within their own countries with international support.
It is essential that the elimination of terrorism should include a prohibition on the extreme expressions of hate which nurture them. Many countries have laws against racial and religious “vilification”. The current overwhelmingly Muslim hate rallies permitted by Pakistan and Indonesia would not be permitted in Australia or the USA, and should not be permitted in any country – even if non-violent. Edward Said talks about the “almost palpable air of hatred” in the USA.
I would have hoped that an intellectual would have put these evils within some context. Some people on the streets of the USA have made evil generalisations and in some cases acted against Muslims or others who appear “alien” (a term widely used in the US for any non-citizen which tars everyone from Australians to Martians !). These expressions and actions are actively opposed by the government by both political statement and police action.
Compare the widespread tolerance if not encouragement of hate and its expression in countries with Muslim groups. This evil is not only expressed on the streets, but institutionalised within religious schools and other Muslim political organisations (one of the core problems with Islam is the absence of any conceptual or actual separation between church and state). It is this value system that is the main cause of the suicidal commitment of the terrorists. Other times and places have endured injustice on the scale being experienced in the Middle East. We need to look closely at a system of belief that responds by systematically brainwashing its population with a belief that violent death in battle is a gold pass to paradise, and that the USA is the evil empire.
A prohibition on expressions of hate illustrates the way in which even “universal values” are subject to a social context. Individual freedoms of speech and action apply within boundaries defined by culture. The challenge for the intellectual is to help develop and refine boundaries that should apply to all cultures. The alternative allows totalitarianism to be disguised as merely a cultural choice.
Second, conditions which feed the tendency to extremism should be changed.
We can ask citizens of the USA to encourage and support an international coalition that will increase individual freedom and democracy in all countries. Again, where nations refuse to cooperate then all means of influence should be brought to bear patiently, humanely, creatively and inexorably e.g. economic inducement or threat, military inducement or threat, support for alternative governments etc. This objective applies to all nations on the planet not just those who may be thought to be currently harbouring terrorists. Its implementation is likely to require economic forces brought to bear for political and humanitarian purposes.
This is the “main long-range hope”. That a “community of conscience and understanding” will emerge to support and ultimately enforce minimum standards of democracy and individual freedom. Of course, there is also a need for emergency provision of sustenance in many areas of the world - food, medicine, housing. But to provide these without establishing the acceptance of shared universal values is to repeat the mistakes of the USA and many others in the past. All immoral regimes will use “human shields” to place their most innocent people into the pit of famine, or indeed the frontline of battle to sap the resolve of their enemies. We can ask citizens of the USA to be resolute in seeking changes that will last beyond the next years drought.
All this asking. What have we to give ? I am proud that Australia has offered tangible support to the USA. Even though the size is insignificant, the symbolic effect of offering real sacrifice rather than conditional hot air is very powerful. There are dangers. The hysterical anti-Americanism and, indeed murderous anti-Christian attitude of crowds in the largest Muslim nation in the world has already cowed many Australians. We can speak up in defence of the USA and provide supportive guidance. What guidance is there in merely encouraging “scepticism and re-evaluation”.
I consider the actions taken to date by Bush, Blair and other leaders as exemplary. Remember what the alternatives could have been ! Remember the widespread acceptance that explosions in Afghanistan following immediately on the attack on the USA were the start of an immediate retaliation. Praise them. Support them. Guide them with specific suggestions. Think of what may happen to the world if they are driven into a corner by the evaporation of international support.
Enough Said.
Academics have the primary task of investigating theoretical boundaries, analysing absolutes, describing aspects of perfection. This is enough, surely. Unfortunately no. The social importance of academia also extends to connecting the theoretical with the practical, the past with the present. The greatest have the courage to take a final step and act or at least propose action in the scale of everyday life. This requires courage because all practical, immediate and everyday action occurs amongst the murky grey of morally contradictory options. The ivory tower by its very nature is (and should be) a place above these considerations. To come down from the tower but retain its perspective is dangerous but also an opportunity to truly lead.
I find Edward Said’s contribution facile in this light.
In the above, article, he describes a sad side effect of generalisation as it applies to Muslims in the USA. I would have expected more analysis of how all people generalise - most importantly about people based on every possible difference such as appearance, speech, and opinion. I would have hoped for recognition that such generalisations are made in many countries against Americans with at least equally brutal results. I would have hoped that the analysis had revealed some principles that distinguish good generalisations from those that are evil.
Evil – a word that I am glad to see re-enter the lexicon, because it injects a morality back into the equation. The word “good” has become merely a measure of the advantage of one over another – “good for whom ?”. Most people would generalise about large tattooed leather jacketed loud bikies in a dark alley on Saturday night, and take another route. Many would discriminate against them in the light of day during an employment interview. Most people generalise on the basis of race and nationality. The Germans are said to lack a sense of humour. The French are said to be great lovers. Ask yourself honestly whether you have used or left such statements unchallenged. I frequently read and hear generalisations about the USA and “Americans” used by highly educated and intelligent people despite their obvious inaccuracy when predicting the personality or performance of any individual. Generalisation becomes evil when it harms the innocent. Yet this occurs constantly to different degrees. The only antidote to incorrect generalisation is exposure to variety. From my exposure, the press is working hard on prominent stories of patriotic Muslims and Arabs. Unfortunately, the coverage also reveals more Muslims and Arabs who do wish nothing but death to the USA.
The events of September 11 2001 were acts of war. The choice of targets, the absence of any demand before destruction, but most of all the scale has elevated them beyond the “ordinary” terrorist act. In a state at war, many will incorrectly generalise that all dissent equals disloyalty.
The enemy has not declared itself. Nor has it stated any aims. This enemy holds to no rules, least of all the bizarre idea of the rules of war. Every US citizen and most of the rest of the world is looking for the enemy. When we look, we see differences and similarities. In a state of war, many will incorrectly generalise that if you dress (or speak, or have a complexion) like known enemies, then you are one.
So what can we ask of US citizens ?
Edward Said asks that they “grasp the main long range hope” which is a “community of conscience and understanding” which requires US citizens to do some “decent back-tracking”. He wants them to “place the horrors of what occurred on 11 September in a context that includes US actions”. He shows gross insensitivity and foolishness by talking of “our main weapons as Arabs” being moral arguments.
Intellectually, morally and politically these attitudes are disastrous.
So what can we ask of US citizens ?
We can ask citizens of the USA to continue their support for international involvement. Their economic and military supremacy on the planet gives them both responsibility and opportunity. Many of their critics are constantly pointing out new responsibilities that require the commitment of US lives and resources. We did not see Arab states rushing to the aid of persecuted Muslims in the Baltic. US citizens in my experience have a sober (but sometimes weary) acceptance of this role. Opportunities also flow from these involvements as they have always done throughout recorded history. There is and should always be a debate about balancing this quid pro quo because there have been, and will be, immoral excesses. But it is laughable to say all opportunities flowing from these involvements are inherently immoral.
We can ask citizens of the USA to continue their support for individual freedom at home and abroad. The USA has, on balance, contributed more than any other nation in history to a higher consciousness and experience of freedom. I would challenge Edward Said to denounce the extreme oppression that exists under Muslim influence throughout the world as a counterpoint to his worries about the “erosion of civil liberties” in the USA. The rulers of most countries represented in the United Nations do not believe in individual freedom. Intellectuals should contribute to the debate on what constitutes freedom and what are the threats to it. In my view, the greatest threat to freedom on the planet is growth – both population and production. But that is another story. Currently, in the USA, the greatest enemy of freedom is fear. The debate must be about how much freedom needs to be sacrificed to reduce the terror. This balance is different in every country, in every road, in every building. The next attack will not be from a plane.
We can ask citizens of the USA to support international involvement and individual freedom by sacrificing some of their sons and daughters as well as a huge amount of money and materials on supporting change in countries throughout the world. This requires a vision that many will not share. An acceptance that there will be tragic mistakes and that the task will often be thankless.
So why do it ?
By putting everyone in Australia to work, the incidence of crime and drug abuse would vastly reduce. But I could give no guarantee that an unemployed drug addict would not murder your mother on the way home. Similarly, if all governments on earth observed minimum standards of democracy and individual freedom, or if all people were fed clothed and housed to a minimum standard, then the number of extremists of all persuasions would be vastly reduced. But, I could give no guarantee that a religious fanatic would not blow up your mother on the way home. I could probably have more success reducing crime, drug addiction and extremism by applying one brand of extremism worldwide. The sad life history of my imaginary unemployed drug addicted killer is an explanation not an excuse, and in my world he would be summarily executed in a humane manner. Likewise the fanatical bomber. If these events became a repeating pattern, it would provoke a search for policies that may prevent others from following the same fatal path.
An international coalition should have two tasks that may be undertaken simultaneously, but should not be confused. First, the infection needs to be removed.
We can ask citizens of the USA to encourage and support an international coalition that will eliminate terrorists in any country preferably with the cooperation of the infected host nation. This has begun. Where host nations refuse to cooperate then all means of influence should be brought to bear patiently, humanely, creatively and inexorably e.g. economic inducement or threat, military inducement or threat, support for alternative governments etc. Where direct military action is considered necessary, it should be taken with a view to moving responsibility as soon as possible to nationals within their own countries with international support.
It is essential that the elimination of terrorism should include a prohibition on the extreme expressions of hate which nurture them. Many countries have laws against racial and religious “vilification”. The current overwhelmingly Muslim hate rallies permitted by Pakistan and Indonesia would not be permitted in Australia or the USA, and should not be permitted in any country – even if non-violent. Edward Said talks about the “almost palpable air of hatred” in the USA.
I would have hoped that an intellectual would have put these evils within some context. Some people on the streets of the USA have made evil generalisations and in some cases acted against Muslims or others who appear “alien” (a term widely used in the US for any non-citizen which tars everyone from Australians to Martians !). These expressions and actions are actively opposed by the government by both political statement and police action.
Compare the widespread tolerance if not encouragement of hate and its expression in countries with Muslim groups. This evil is not only expressed on the streets, but institutionalised within religious schools and other Muslim political organisations (one of the core problems with Islam is the absence of any conceptual or actual separation between church and state). It is this value system that is the main cause of the suicidal commitment of the terrorists. Other times and places have endured injustice on the scale being experienced in the Middle East. We need to look closely at a system of belief that responds by systematically brainwashing its population with a belief that violent death in battle is a gold pass to paradise, and that the USA is the evil empire.
A prohibition on expressions of hate illustrates the way in which even “universal values” are subject to a social context. Individual freedoms of speech and action apply within boundaries defined by culture. The challenge for the intellectual is to help develop and refine boundaries that should apply to all cultures. The alternative allows totalitarianism to be disguised as merely a cultural choice.
Second, conditions which feed the tendency to extremism should be changed.
We can ask citizens of the USA to encourage and support an international coalition that will increase individual freedom and democracy in all countries. Again, where nations refuse to cooperate then all means of influence should be brought to bear patiently, humanely, creatively and inexorably e.g. economic inducement or threat, military inducement or threat, support for alternative governments etc. This objective applies to all nations on the planet not just those who may be thought to be currently harbouring terrorists. Its implementation is likely to require economic forces brought to bear for political and humanitarian purposes.
This is the “main long-range hope”. That a “community of conscience and understanding” will emerge to support and ultimately enforce minimum standards of democracy and individual freedom. Of course, there is also a need for emergency provision of sustenance in many areas of the world - food, medicine, housing. But to provide these without establishing the acceptance of shared universal values is to repeat the mistakes of the USA and many others in the past. All immoral regimes will use “human shields” to place their most innocent people into the pit of famine, or indeed the frontline of battle to sap the resolve of their enemies. We can ask citizens of the USA to be resolute in seeking changes that will last beyond the next years drought.
All this asking. What have we to give ? I am proud that Australia has offered tangible support to the USA. Even though the size is insignificant, the symbolic effect of offering real sacrifice rather than conditional hot air is very powerful. There are dangers. The hysterical anti-Americanism and, indeed murderous anti-Christian attitude of crowds in the largest Muslim nation in the world has already cowed many Australians. We can speak up in defence of the USA and provide supportive guidance. What guidance is there in merely encouraging “scepticism and re-evaluation”.
I consider the actions taken to date by Bush, Blair and other leaders as exemplary. Remember what the alternatives could have been ! Remember the widespread acceptance that explosions in Afghanistan following immediately on the attack on the USA were the start of an immediate retaliation. Praise them. Support them. Guide them with specific suggestions. Think of what may happen to the world if they are driven into a corner by the evaporation of international support.
Enough Said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)