Thursday, February 05, 2015
Saturday, January 24, 2015
"International Vibe" - first Radio Show of 2105 for me on ELR
International Vibe Radio Show
Some great classics from across the decades, Folk, Blues, Rock, Pop, Country & more...and of course our love of Classical...x
Some great classics from across the decades, Folk, Blues, Rock, Pop, Country & more...and of course our love of Classical...x
East London Radio Show, "International Vibe"
Last show of 2014 on East London Radio, From Lake Como, Italy and London...a series of top tunes from around the world with some views on news of the day....
International Vibe Show
International Vibe Show
Monday, December 01, 2014
Tuesday, November 04, 2014
The Sun, Mick Hume on Poppies, WW1 and Vibe Bar closing
Mick Hume in The Sun on Poppies, WW1 and Vibe Bar closing...
Poppies are pretty great lesson for us all
Memorable sight of hundreds of thousands of flowers
AFP
1
By MICK HUME, Sun Guest Columnist
Published: 11 hrs ago
HANDS up all those who would queue to see the Tower of London moat filled with “barbed wire and bones” to commemorate the centenary of the start of the First World War.
Slightly fewer, we might suspect, than the four million who have so far been to see the Tower’s memorial display of 888,246 ceramic poppies — one for every British and colonial serviceman and woman killed in The Great War.
Yet a political row broke out this week, after an art critic suggested that a moat full of bones and barbed wire would make a more fitting tribute to the carnage of 1914-18.
Writing in the Guardian newspaper, Jonathan Jones (no, me neither) damned the sea of poppies as a “prettified and toothless war memorial” trying to “sweep the grisly facts under a red carpet of artificial flowers”.
He called it a “Ukip-style memorial” which, in Guardian-speak, is about as bad as it gets.
David Cameron was even moved to dismiss the criticism and defend the Tower memorial at Prime Minister’s Question Time.
Others rallied to the critic’s defence online, describing the mass display of poppies as too nationalistic (there are no poppies for the dead of other nations) and militaristic. This sort of posturing says more about the pathetic state of political debate today than it does about the reality of the First World War.
The notion of nationalistic tub-thumping around the centenary is a figment of the old Left’s imagination. The British authorities, like other former Allies, have tried to avoid any hint of triumphalism.
Even while dismissing the critics in parliament, Cameron felt obliged to declare that “obviously the slaughter was horrendous”.
From the television studio to the school classroom, every discussion now emphasises the incomprehensible horror of the trenches.
Some might think that people are stupid enough to be duped by flowers and need instead to be bashed over the head with bones.
But those four million who went to see the Tower memorial are unlikely to have gone away with a “prettified” view of the war.
Far from an old-fashioned celebration of military victory, it looks more like a thoroughly modern tribute to the victims.
Today many will wear poppies and sympathise with the armed forces, through charities such as Help for Heroes, without necessarily supporting the wars they are sent to fight in places such as Afghanistan. And they can feel for the sacrifices of the First World War without being retrospectively converted into flag-waving imperialists.
If anybody wants to witness a truly nationalistic display, let them look back to 1915 when the Bishop of London, Arthur F Winnington-Ingram, urged British soldiers to, “Kill Germans — do kill them; not for the sake of killing, but to save the world, to kill the good as well as the bad, to kill the young as well as the old.”
Today those words seem to come not just from another century but from a different planet.
By contrast the art critics and other poppy-bashers who read history backwards suggest that the First World War (if not all war) was just a terrible, meaningless waste. Now, I am nobody’s idea of a warmonger — I donate to the ex-serviceman’s fund, but don’t even wear a poppy.
On this, however, I am with the great Victorian philosopher JS Mill, who said that “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”
Nobody wants to celebrate the slaughter of the First World War.
But there will be dark times ahead if we teach our young people that nothing is worth fighting for, ever.
Goodbye mellow brick road
TWENTY years ago, Brick Lane in London’s old East End was a virtual no-go zone for trendy punters, still haunted by the ghosts of Jack the Ripper and Ronnie and Reggie.
The opening of the Vibe Bar in the old Truman brewery started Brick Lane’s transformation into one of the capital’s cultural hotspots.
Now the pioneering Vibe Bar is to close its famous gates, fed up with what co-founder Alan Miller calls the “petty-minded” war being waged on London’s night economy by police and licensing authorities.
The biggest risk you face in Brick Lane these days is being annoyed by a curry house tout or tripping over a Ripper walking tour.
Yet, says Miller, the authorities now insist venues operate “airport-style security – it’s almost like the council expects you to run a prison”.
He has had enough and the Vibe will sadly cease to vibrate on November 11.
We hear scare stories of Islamist patrols warning drinkers and partying women that they are not welcome in East London.
But who needs the Tower Hamlets Taliban when the Metropolitan Police and council are on the case?
Poppies are pretty great lesson for us all
Memorable sight of hundreds of thousands of flowers
AFP
1
By MICK HUME, Sun Guest Columnist
Published: 11 hrs ago
HANDS up all those who would queue to see the Tower of London moat filled with “barbed wire and bones” to commemorate the centenary of the start of the First World War.
Slightly fewer, we might suspect, than the four million who have so far been to see the Tower’s memorial display of 888,246 ceramic poppies — one for every British and colonial serviceman and woman killed in The Great War.
Yet a political row broke out this week, after an art critic suggested that a moat full of bones and barbed wire would make a more fitting tribute to the carnage of 1914-18.
Writing in the Guardian newspaper, Jonathan Jones (no, me neither) damned the sea of poppies as a “prettified and toothless war memorial” trying to “sweep the grisly facts under a red carpet of artificial flowers”.
He called it a “Ukip-style memorial” which, in Guardian-speak, is about as bad as it gets.
David Cameron was even moved to dismiss the criticism and defend the Tower memorial at Prime Minister’s Question Time.
Others rallied to the critic’s defence online, describing the mass display of poppies as too nationalistic (there are no poppies for the dead of other nations) and militaristic. This sort of posturing says more about the pathetic state of political debate today than it does about the reality of the First World War.
The notion of nationalistic tub-thumping around the centenary is a figment of the old Left’s imagination. The British authorities, like other former Allies, have tried to avoid any hint of triumphalism.
Even while dismissing the critics in parliament, Cameron felt obliged to declare that “obviously the slaughter was horrendous”.
From the television studio to the school classroom, every discussion now emphasises the incomprehensible horror of the trenches.
Some might think that people are stupid enough to be duped by flowers and need instead to be bashed over the head with bones.
But those four million who went to see the Tower memorial are unlikely to have gone away with a “prettified” view of the war.
Far from an old-fashioned celebration of military victory, it looks more like a thoroughly modern tribute to the victims.
Today many will wear poppies and sympathise with the armed forces, through charities such as Help for Heroes, without necessarily supporting the wars they are sent to fight in places such as Afghanistan. And they can feel for the sacrifices of the First World War without being retrospectively converted into flag-waving imperialists.
If anybody wants to witness a truly nationalistic display, let them look back to 1915 when the Bishop of London, Arthur F Winnington-Ingram, urged British soldiers to, “Kill Germans — do kill them; not for the sake of killing, but to save the world, to kill the good as well as the bad, to kill the young as well as the old.”
Today those words seem to come not just from another century but from a different planet.
By contrast the art critics and other poppy-bashers who read history backwards suggest that the First World War (if not all war) was just a terrible, meaningless waste. Now, I am nobody’s idea of a warmonger — I donate to the ex-serviceman’s fund, but don’t even wear a poppy.
On this, however, I am with the great Victorian philosopher JS Mill, who said that “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”
Nobody wants to celebrate the slaughter of the First World War.
But there will be dark times ahead if we teach our young people that nothing is worth fighting for, ever.
Goodbye mellow brick road
TWENTY years ago, Brick Lane in London’s old East End was a virtual no-go zone for trendy punters, still haunted by the ghosts of Jack the Ripper and Ronnie and Reggie.
The opening of the Vibe Bar in the old Truman brewery started Brick Lane’s transformation into one of the capital’s cultural hotspots.
Now the pioneering Vibe Bar is to close its famous gates, fed up with what co-founder Alan Miller calls the “petty-minded” war being waged on London’s night economy by police and licensing authorities.
The biggest risk you face in Brick Lane these days is being annoyed by a curry house tout or tripping over a Ripper walking tour.
Yet, says Miller, the authorities now insist venues operate “airport-style security – it’s almost like the council expects you to run a prison”.
He has had enough and the Vibe will sadly cease to vibrate on November 11.
We hear scare stories of Islamist patrols warning drinkers and partying women that they are not welcome in East London.
But who needs the Tower Hamlets Taliban when the Metropolitan Police and council are on the case?
Saturday, November 01, 2014
My Radio Show - ELR
East London Radio My Show No 6
Budapest, Battle of Ideas - on busking + more, Pre-Closing of Vibe Bar and some amazing music!
Budapest, Battle of Ideas - on busking + more, Pre-Closing of Vibe Bar and some amazing music!
Monday, October 20, 2014
Radio Show - East London Radio : from Athens and Ibiza...
East London Radio - Live from Nashville and more...
This time round, Alan Miller is in Nashville, meeting ex-Brit musician Lindsay Jamieson, plus a chat with Polly O’Connell from East London fashion designers Bambi and Manson. A touch of blue grass mixed with new music from Jace Everett and Maggio, plus some standards from Dolly Parton, Bill Withers and more. Alans moved on to Athens then to….well tune in next week as his European tour continues to see where he gets! Contact Alan @alanvibe on Twitter, or email
East London Radio
Saturday, August 30, 2014
My Weekly Show....
My show this week on East London Radio -
It is a tribute to Carnival, musically & politically - especially in light of recent int'l events - how much we have in common together and how fantastic London is with so many different people together; how much it has improved in the decades since "No Blacks, No Irish" in Notting Hill B & B's - but also how we ALL have a universal interest in challenging chauvinism and small mindedness, WHEREVER it raises its ugly head...
I feature a fantastic street performer, Fredy Beats and some really good Street Artists who all set up for the day in the courtyard at Vibe with Anna Laurini, Maggio Perspicere, Jarvis and more...
Shouts to Battle of Ideas festival & Free Speech Now campaign as well of course, always The Vibe Bar...
Music courtesy of Mory Kante, Barrington Levy The Specials (Official) Angelique Angélique Kidjo and the maestro..Rachmaninoff...
Tweet me for any shouts, mentions, stories, interviews and more @alanvibe x
Hear my show by clicking on this...
It is a tribute to Carnival, musically & politically - especially in light of recent int'l events - how much we have in common together and how fantastic London is with so many different people together; how much it has improved in the decades since "No Blacks, No Irish" in Notting Hill B & B's - but also how we ALL have a universal interest in challenging chauvinism and small mindedness, WHEREVER it raises its ugly head...
I feature a fantastic street performer, Fredy Beats and some really good Street Artists who all set up for the day in the courtyard at Vibe with Anna Laurini, Maggio Perspicere, Jarvis and more...
Shouts to Battle of Ideas festival & Free Speech Now campaign as well of course, always The Vibe Bar...
Music courtesy of Mory Kante, Barrington Levy The Specials (Official) Angelique Angélique Kidjo and the maestro..Rachmaninoff...
Tweet me for any shouts, mentions, stories, interviews and more @alanvibe x
Hear my show by clicking on this...
New Reguarlish Show on East London Radio...
In this little experiment I am to bring in interesting people from across East London to share what they are doing to make something happen - as well as music that has inspired and continues to inspire me from around the world and featuring a particular theme each time we do it...
This one hones in a bit on Hackney Wick - as well as Misfit Dior who's making it happen in NYC and music from Morcheeba to Bach....
First of my sort-of-weekly Radio Shows
Saturday, August 16, 2014
On BBC LONDON with Shay Grewal & Mark Stephens - News Round Up -
To Listen to show: BBC London Alan Miller
On the show with Shay Grewal and Mark Stephens I covered:
1 Ukraine says has destroyed Russian vehicles that entered territory -
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/15/ukraine-says-russian-vehicles-territory
2 Britain is prepared to arm The Kurds in Iraq
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11035689/Britain-is-prepared-to-arm-Kurdish-forces-in-Iraq.html
3 Some twitter users jumping the gun re Cliff Richard
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/08/14/twitter-users-jump-gun-again-they-assume-cliff-richards-guilt-following-sex-assault
4
Wall St Journal - Modern Jew Haters
http://online.wsj.com/articles/brendan-oneill-modern-major-jew-haters-1408042650
5 A Year On - How the west green lighted Sisi massacres -
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/one-year-on-how-the-west-green-lighted-sisis-massacres/15598#.U-3aS0hCa00
5 Scientists attack claim blacks are prone to violence
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article4176795.ece
6 Ferguson - riots and police
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/us/ferguson-images-evoke-civil-rights-era-and-changing-visual-perceptions.html?_r=0
7 Shape Up America, if you want to lead the world
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4173339.ece
On the show with Shay Grewal and Mark Stephens I covered:
1 Ukraine says has destroyed Russian vehicles that entered territory -
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/15/ukraine-says-russian-vehicles-territory
2 Britain is prepared to arm The Kurds in Iraq
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11035689/Britain-is-prepared-to-arm-Kurdish-forces-in-Iraq.html
3 Some twitter users jumping the gun re Cliff Richard
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/08/14/twitter-users-jump-gun-again-they-assume-cliff-richards-guilt-following-sex-assault
4
Wall St Journal - Modern Jew Haters
http://online.wsj.com/articles/brendan-oneill-modern-major-jew-haters-1408042650
5 A Year On - How the west green lighted Sisi massacres -
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/one-year-on-how-the-west-green-lighted-sisis-massacres/15598#.U-3aS0hCa00
5 Scientists attack claim blacks are prone to violence
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article4176795.ece
6 Ferguson - riots and police
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/us/ferguson-images-evoke-civil-rights-era-and-changing-visual-perceptions.html?_r=0
7 Shape Up America, if you want to lead the world
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4173339.ece
Tuesday, August 05, 2014
Gaza. Israel. What to do?
It seems today that everyone has suddenly become an expert on the Middle East. Well, not the Middle East so much, as Gaza and Israel in particular.
These are not experts in the geopolitical or historical sense mind. No, these are the experts of "this is completely exceptional, utterly unique and a particularly different set of inhumane circumstances" shrill and exasperated "experts". With the tiniest shreds of historical references to Balfour and much talk of Apartheid - yet with a sense of apparent moral certainty that is quite alarming.
This is interlaced with the terrible images of children suffering.
Anyone who has any shred of humanity and consideration for fellow human beings cannot fail but to be moved by such horrible images, of carnage and destruction. Then the images of the children. What words can be summoned up when faced with such bleak images of upended concrete and steel, spiralling numbers of dead...and at the front and foremost...the children?
It is perhaps not fair to lump together what is being posted and sent around on Social Media generally by people with journalists attempts to make sense of complex issues
You might expect the Times of Israel to ask why there are no images of Hamas fighters in Gaza but does this mean it is a wrong question to ask just because they have asked it?
Another question is why, today the prevailing images are almost entirely and exclusively of suffering and victimhood? Of course it is true that brutal images are of brutal realities. However there was a time when the images presented to the world were of Palestinian"Fedayeen" - those hailed as freedom fighters and seen as very militant. Bold warriors, armed, ready to fight for an idea of a nation state. A good example of some of this iconographic imagery is on display at Here and Elsewhere currently at The New Museum, Bowery, New York City.
Older images of fighters, armed - along with a clear political program that was predicated on self determination and often linked more broadly to other international liberation struggles across the world, is an absolute relic of the past. Imploded in the collapse of strong political alternatives, we now have Hamas, the curated and sculpted child of certain Israeli strategists who wanted to weaken Fatah. Like the USA supporting anti Communism through Islamic militants, it hasn't turned out so well...
Many want to talk today about the "global domination" of the media by certain interests (and often "Jewish" is referred to) - although it would seem from the flurry of images, Facebook and Twitter posts, conversations in the supermarket, deli, on the streets and at dinner parties, Gaza is the thing on everyone's lips.
Maybe suddenly everyone has become radicalized. Or perhaps what is happening, is more of a reinforcement of already deeply seated trends.
Those trends are to promote victimhood as the most profound thing today - people aim to take prestige from being "surviviors" of all kinds of things. We are encouraged to side always with "victims" - and people are increasingly prone to being presented as weak, flawed, psychologically impaired. Alongside this, there are few universals. No more Red Threat. So a Good Versus Evil story is sometimes desired in a world of prickly and complex issues. In many ways, it seems that the Gaza / Israel - Good / Evil story has become the dominating idea. We cannot and should not ignore all of the aspects of the conflict. Terrible suffering, of children especially is gruesome and horrific. However to simplify it all to being only about this does nobody any favors. Particularly those looking to forge an independent, strong, autonomous homeland.
Whenever one asks questions, there can be a tendency for people to retort "Why are you diverting attention from the main issue?" - however, what the main issue is will obviously have a context. How that context is addressed is also crucial.
I shall explore the context a little more fully below, but one question that some people have asked, very poignantly I believe, is how come Gaza has (along with Ukraine) had quite so much attention when far less is discussed in other extremely violent areas, with enormously high death tolls such as Syria, Congo, Aleppo and others. Is it, as the editor of UK online publication Spiked asked, that the continual posting and honing in on images of children is some kind of "moral pornography" and does little to enlighten about the situation.
Others have wondered why Syrian suffering children have garnered less interest as well as suffering in Congo, Aleppo and beyond. Brendan O Neill, was one of the few journalists to remind British leaders, in their desire to condemn Israeli mortar attacks and shelling that killed civilians that they had voted for Nato bombing in Libya which... also killed many civilians. Were they as outraged at that? Where was the broader outcry?
Indeed, in The Australian he argued that Israel is experiencing an unfair bias internationally as though it issomehow entirely more terrible than anyone or anything else. Scott Lucas reckoned that The Atlantic coverage of Jeffrey Goldberg I referenced further up was misleading and wrong to argue this way.
If we aim to get to the truth, we also know that in war, often truth can become a major, first casualty. We also know that war is hell. These cliches do not legitimize anything of course and journalists particularly, although all of us I believe, have a responsibility to aim to understand things truly as they are.
Perhaps it should come as little surprise that some will just grab any images or videos and use them to reinforce an argument, such as Syrian deaths being presented as though they are Palestinians.
While Hanine Hassan raises a question on Al Jazeera Opinion asking why Europeans and Americans who go to fight for Israelare not labelled as Jihadists - she then goes on to term the use the term "genocide" in Gaza. Genocide has now become used in many contexts - and losing much of its specificity ends up describing very horrible or nasty things; but labelling them as a specific quest to entirely exterminate a particular group of people is a deceptive use of language.
We should take note that when a BBC journalist simply retweets an image, things have become very problematic. Jon Donnison's tweet on "pain in Gaza" was actually a Syrian girl, in...Syria.
Will Saletan penned a piece in Slate arguing that Israel is not trying to kill Palestinians, but rather trying to spare them although Omar Baddar strongly criticized this in Salon siting Andrew Sullivan's question asking how are Hamas expected to fight and where to store their weapons in the context of operating from Gaza. One does not have to agree with Melanie Phillips on all things however, to wonder why such effective tunnels are built while shelters and other infrastructure are so glaringly absent. She then controversially asked, with the constant numbering of dead, if people were saying "there are not enough dead Jews".
It does seem that there is an increasingly shrill harmony ascending western "discussion" about Israel and Gaza. It has become very apparent that knee-jerk, ahistorical reactions and over simplified rants seem to be coming to dominate western discussion about Gaza and Israel.
One doesn't need to have read Joesphus's The Jewish Wars to know that there have been many names to that region dating back thousands of years. Herodotus refers to it in his phenomenal The Peloponessian Wars in the Greek Palaistine as part of region of Syria and Judaea and King Herod's Israel were situated there. From early Egyptians, through Babylonians and Canaanites right through to the emperor Constantine deciding (somewhat pragmatically) to use the newly emerged Christian faith system to exert more universal rule across "Byzantium", it solidified Roman rule east and west - until the sacking of Constantinople and rule by the Ottomans.
That rule went as we know lasted several centuries up until the First World War. Thereupon, the British, facing a changing dynamic to their own empire and having experienced considerable exhaustion, in 1917 announced the Balfour Declaration re Palestine - with a very pragmatic British concern of having some kind of relationship and "buffer" potentially in the region where major empires were fighting and some failing. The British had agreed to honor any Arab uprising against Ottoman rule and yet were playing the pragmatic empire politics.
It is important just to remind ourselves of the historical context of the region - and the role the major western states have played and continue to play, in order to understand how things are working today. While the Arab revolts of 1930's were put down, an exhausted post WW2 Britain was unable to administer internationally any longer and the creation of Israel in 1948. It should be remembered however, that had it not been for events in Europe - with The Holocaust; most Jews would not have decided to go to Palestine. Blocked British borders and American ports meant often there were few choices. Contrary to any "safe haven" idea, the not so popular views of Theodor Herzl, which chimed remarkably with more racist ideas that Jews and Gentiles could not live together, became the reality of a Zionist state.
The USA as new hegemonic power seized the moment in the period of the Cold War
The post war competing "Superpowers" Communist/Democratic split ensured there was a clear use for Israel in the region - as a check against pan-Arabism and national liberation struggles that concerned western elite interests during the Cold War period.
However, to simply de-contextualize all of this and simply present Israel as some strange "mad", "out of control" "blood thirsty"and particularly evil and worse than others does nothing to either understand the situation, nor indeed to attempt to resolve it.
Up until recently, Palestinian aspirations were for a secular, free region, for Muslims, Christians, Jews and those of no faith. As it happens, that was the very reason Theodor Herzl also argued strongly for Palestine being a good region to head to. Anti-Zionism in the age of national liberation struggles was not against Jews - but opposed to the political outlook of Zionism.
It was always annoying and distracting in the past, when those that believed strongly in Zionism would accuse anyone that criticized the state of Israel as being anti-Semitic. It was dishonest and an attempt to challenge criticisms or alternatives. However, there has been a significant change in recent years. It has become increasingly acceptable in many places to converge descriptions of the state of Israel with "Jews". From student demonstrations in Britain, to attacks on synagogues and citizens in France, the increasing fashionable outlook of on the one hand demonizing Israel as something so special, so different, so exceptional, along with the merging of Zionist and Jewish identities represents an ignorant and dangerous trend.
Not just in Europe, as in Boston recently with many publications reporting on
chants and placards at demonstrations such as "Death to Jews" and "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas" although Stop The War Coalition interviewed participants who said they would challenge such ideas.
We need to all be very careful about clambering to prove our prejudices, in often complex and difficult situations where things are not always immediately clear. There also should be a belief in truth and diligence in reporting. From the wreckage of MH17 several news outlets reported this was despicable separatists rummaging through dead people's property, but it turned out to be an impromptu prayer session for the victims. Similarly, The Guardian reported on how a UN claim that ISIS has been forcing all the women in Mosul, Iraq to have FGM was seemingly based on hype not substance.
Of course passions will run high. I happen to agree that they should. After all, nothing has changed in the world without ordinary people becoming engaged and passionate. However, just because one is passionate and enraged does not mean one is right.
A uniting chorus about how "ugly" and "mad" and what a "Pariah" or Rogue State Israel is simply ignores reality. The USA sends drone bombs to Pakistan and the west has backed interventions against "rogue" and "pariah" states, militarizing and creating killing zones across the Middle East. To pretend that somehow Israel is the worst culprit is beyond silly, it is dangerous.
I have always believed that Christians, Muslims, Jews and non believers can live cheek-by-jowl in harmony. I live some of the time in New York City and it is abundant proof of my point. There is no objective reason why this cannot be the case anywhere in the world.
A solution in the middle east should be made up and created by the people in the region themselves. As I argued against western intervention in Syria
on Huffpost some time ago, I reiterate here. Calling on the UN, the USA or the "west" to intervene does nothing to help ordinary people in the area. It simply exacerbates issues.
It is true of course that the USA provides enormous financing for Israel (and less for Gaza). Although even the US position on Israel has changed and is continuing to do so. The Economist this week considers the changing role of Europe and the US to Israel and the region and it is apparent that President Obama and others are increasingly viewing Israel as somewhat less necessary due to the new contours of geopolitical realities. No more Arab Nationalism and Cold War to deal with and an illiterate grasp of post Arab spring requirements have meant it is somewhat of a thorn in its side often.
I have always believed it is possible to have in that region a solution that is based on federations, where all people can live alongside one another. That is based on believing in people, together, resolving common problems and struggles. The last few weeks have made it far more clear though that many are not interested in a nuanced and difficult discussion. Not just in the press (clearly not dominated by "Jewish interests" for anyone who takes a glance anywhere) but general conversations and across Social Media, things have become a rant.
One may not believe that Zionism is the solution to anyone's problem, born as it is out of the European horror of a failure of society and anti-Enlightenment. However, the current climate of racist, anti-Jewish invective makes transparent a new very worrying development. One can be opposed to shelling civilians and think it is wrong without going along with this new zeitgeist to show how "emotionally literate" one is by posting cheap and shallow social media messages about Gaza (but not in so many other places).
Real freedom comes from having a political project, a plan and aiming to convince people to get together to organize around principles to achieve goals. This is not being offered. Instead we are witnessing - and some are participating in an invitation to hate and pour scorn - yet no talk of possible solutions and freedom.
In his astonishing new book, The Quest for a Moral Compass, the writer and commentator Kenan Malik charts the history of humanity's attempt to make sense of the world across the ages. He soars and digs deeply and explores our exploits from every region. What is so inspiring is the attempts to understand, to improve our knowledge of the world and ourselves. Taking in everyone from Socrates to Ibn Rushud, Kongzi to Fung Yu Lan and many others - he gradually begins to present the case for the world being in our grasp at all times.
We can always make and remake our world. However in order to do that, a desire to understand and be clear is essential. I do not see many places where people are looking and arguing for genuine solutions with regard to Gaza and Israel. Instead I see lots of consensus. Bland consensus, dressed up loudly shouting, blindly pointing and worryingly ignorant.
Having a calm and clear, honest debate would be very welcome in the midst of what at times seems to verge on near-hysteria.
These are not experts in the geopolitical or historical sense mind. No, these are the experts of "this is completely exceptional, utterly unique and a particularly different set of inhumane circumstances" shrill and exasperated "experts". With the tiniest shreds of historical references to Balfour and much talk of Apartheid - yet with a sense of apparent moral certainty that is quite alarming.
This is interlaced with the terrible images of children suffering.
Anyone who has any shred of humanity and consideration for fellow human beings cannot fail but to be moved by such horrible images, of carnage and destruction. Then the images of the children. What words can be summoned up when faced with such bleak images of upended concrete and steel, spiralling numbers of dead...and at the front and foremost...the children?
It is perhaps not fair to lump together what is being posted and sent around on Social Media generally by people with journalists attempts to make sense of complex issues
You might expect the Times of Israel to ask why there are no images of Hamas fighters in Gaza but does this mean it is a wrong question to ask just because they have asked it?
Another question is why, today the prevailing images are almost entirely and exclusively of suffering and victimhood? Of course it is true that brutal images are of brutal realities. However there was a time when the images presented to the world were of Palestinian"Fedayeen" - those hailed as freedom fighters and seen as very militant. Bold warriors, armed, ready to fight for an idea of a nation state. A good example of some of this iconographic imagery is on display at Here and Elsewhere currently at The New Museum, Bowery, New York City.
Older images of fighters, armed - along with a clear political program that was predicated on self determination and often linked more broadly to other international liberation struggles across the world, is an absolute relic of the past. Imploded in the collapse of strong political alternatives, we now have Hamas, the curated and sculpted child of certain Israeli strategists who wanted to weaken Fatah. Like the USA supporting anti Communism through Islamic militants, it hasn't turned out so well...
Many want to talk today about the "global domination" of the media by certain interests (and often "Jewish" is referred to) - although it would seem from the flurry of images, Facebook and Twitter posts, conversations in the supermarket, deli, on the streets and at dinner parties, Gaza is the thing on everyone's lips.
Maybe suddenly everyone has become radicalized. Or perhaps what is happening, is more of a reinforcement of already deeply seated trends.
Those trends are to promote victimhood as the most profound thing today - people aim to take prestige from being "surviviors" of all kinds of things. We are encouraged to side always with "victims" - and people are increasingly prone to being presented as weak, flawed, psychologically impaired. Alongside this, there are few universals. No more Red Threat. So a Good Versus Evil story is sometimes desired in a world of prickly and complex issues. In many ways, it seems that the Gaza / Israel - Good / Evil story has become the dominating idea. We cannot and should not ignore all of the aspects of the conflict. Terrible suffering, of children especially is gruesome and horrific. However to simplify it all to being only about this does nobody any favors. Particularly those looking to forge an independent, strong, autonomous homeland.
Whenever one asks questions, there can be a tendency for people to retort "Why are you diverting attention from the main issue?" - however, what the main issue is will obviously have a context. How that context is addressed is also crucial.
I shall explore the context a little more fully below, but one question that some people have asked, very poignantly I believe, is how come Gaza has (along with Ukraine) had quite so much attention when far less is discussed in other extremely violent areas, with enormously high death tolls such as Syria, Congo, Aleppo and others. Is it, as the editor of UK online publication Spiked asked, that the continual posting and honing in on images of children is some kind of "moral pornography" and does little to enlighten about the situation.
Others have wondered why Syrian suffering children have garnered less interest as well as suffering in Congo, Aleppo and beyond. Brendan O Neill, was one of the few journalists to remind British leaders, in their desire to condemn Israeli mortar attacks and shelling that killed civilians that they had voted for Nato bombing in Libya which... also killed many civilians. Were they as outraged at that? Where was the broader outcry?
Indeed, in The Australian he argued that Israel is experiencing an unfair bias internationally as though it issomehow entirely more terrible than anyone or anything else. Scott Lucas reckoned that The Atlantic coverage of Jeffrey Goldberg I referenced further up was misleading and wrong to argue this way.
If we aim to get to the truth, we also know that in war, often truth can become a major, first casualty. We also know that war is hell. These cliches do not legitimize anything of course and journalists particularly, although all of us I believe, have a responsibility to aim to understand things truly as they are.
Perhaps it should come as little surprise that some will just grab any images or videos and use them to reinforce an argument, such as Syrian deaths being presented as though they are Palestinians.
While Hanine Hassan raises a question on Al Jazeera Opinion asking why Europeans and Americans who go to fight for Israelare not labelled as Jihadists - she then goes on to term the use the term "genocide" in Gaza. Genocide has now become used in many contexts - and losing much of its specificity ends up describing very horrible or nasty things; but labelling them as a specific quest to entirely exterminate a particular group of people is a deceptive use of language.
We should take note that when a BBC journalist simply retweets an image, things have become very problematic. Jon Donnison's tweet on "pain in Gaza" was actually a Syrian girl, in...Syria.
Will Saletan penned a piece in Slate arguing that Israel is not trying to kill Palestinians, but rather trying to spare them although Omar Baddar strongly criticized this in Salon siting Andrew Sullivan's question asking how are Hamas expected to fight and where to store their weapons in the context of operating from Gaza. One does not have to agree with Melanie Phillips on all things however, to wonder why such effective tunnels are built while shelters and other infrastructure are so glaringly absent. She then controversially asked, with the constant numbering of dead, if people were saying "there are not enough dead Jews".
It does seem that there is an increasingly shrill harmony ascending western "discussion" about Israel and Gaza. It has become very apparent that knee-jerk, ahistorical reactions and over simplified rants seem to be coming to dominate western discussion about Gaza and Israel.
One doesn't need to have read Joesphus's The Jewish Wars to know that there have been many names to that region dating back thousands of years. Herodotus refers to it in his phenomenal The Peloponessian Wars in the Greek Palaistine as part of region of Syria and Judaea and King Herod's Israel were situated there. From early Egyptians, through Babylonians and Canaanites right through to the emperor Constantine deciding (somewhat pragmatically) to use the newly emerged Christian faith system to exert more universal rule across "Byzantium", it solidified Roman rule east and west - until the sacking of Constantinople and rule by the Ottomans.
That rule went as we know lasted several centuries up until the First World War. Thereupon, the British, facing a changing dynamic to their own empire and having experienced considerable exhaustion, in 1917 announced the Balfour Declaration re Palestine - with a very pragmatic British concern of having some kind of relationship and "buffer" potentially in the region where major empires were fighting and some failing. The British had agreed to honor any Arab uprising against Ottoman rule and yet were playing the pragmatic empire politics.
It is important just to remind ourselves of the historical context of the region - and the role the major western states have played and continue to play, in order to understand how things are working today. While the Arab revolts of 1930's were put down, an exhausted post WW2 Britain was unable to administer internationally any longer and the creation of Israel in 1948. It should be remembered however, that had it not been for events in Europe - with The Holocaust; most Jews would not have decided to go to Palestine. Blocked British borders and American ports meant often there were few choices. Contrary to any "safe haven" idea, the not so popular views of Theodor Herzl, which chimed remarkably with more racist ideas that Jews and Gentiles could not live together, became the reality of a Zionist state.
The USA as new hegemonic power seized the moment in the period of the Cold War
The post war competing "Superpowers" Communist/Democratic split ensured there was a clear use for Israel in the region - as a check against pan-Arabism and national liberation struggles that concerned western elite interests during the Cold War period.
However, to simply de-contextualize all of this and simply present Israel as some strange "mad", "out of control" "blood thirsty"and particularly evil and worse than others does nothing to either understand the situation, nor indeed to attempt to resolve it.
Up until recently, Palestinian aspirations were for a secular, free region, for Muslims, Christians, Jews and those of no faith. As it happens, that was the very reason Theodor Herzl also argued strongly for Palestine being a good region to head to. Anti-Zionism in the age of national liberation struggles was not against Jews - but opposed to the political outlook of Zionism.
It was always annoying and distracting in the past, when those that believed strongly in Zionism would accuse anyone that criticized the state of Israel as being anti-Semitic. It was dishonest and an attempt to challenge criticisms or alternatives. However, there has been a significant change in recent years. It has become increasingly acceptable in many places to converge descriptions of the state of Israel with "Jews". From student demonstrations in Britain, to attacks on synagogues and citizens in France, the increasing fashionable outlook of on the one hand demonizing Israel as something so special, so different, so exceptional, along with the merging of Zionist and Jewish identities represents an ignorant and dangerous trend.
Not just in Europe, as in Boston recently with many publications reporting on
chants and placards at demonstrations such as "Death to Jews" and "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas" although Stop The War Coalition interviewed participants who said they would challenge such ideas.
We need to all be very careful about clambering to prove our prejudices, in often complex and difficult situations where things are not always immediately clear. There also should be a belief in truth and diligence in reporting. From the wreckage of MH17 several news outlets reported this was despicable separatists rummaging through dead people's property, but it turned out to be an impromptu prayer session for the victims. Similarly, The Guardian reported on how a UN claim that ISIS has been forcing all the women in Mosul, Iraq to have FGM was seemingly based on hype not substance.
Of course passions will run high. I happen to agree that they should. After all, nothing has changed in the world without ordinary people becoming engaged and passionate. However, just because one is passionate and enraged does not mean one is right.
A uniting chorus about how "ugly" and "mad" and what a "Pariah" or Rogue State Israel is simply ignores reality. The USA sends drone bombs to Pakistan and the west has backed interventions against "rogue" and "pariah" states, militarizing and creating killing zones across the Middle East. To pretend that somehow Israel is the worst culprit is beyond silly, it is dangerous.
I have always believed that Christians, Muslims, Jews and non believers can live cheek-by-jowl in harmony. I live some of the time in New York City and it is abundant proof of my point. There is no objective reason why this cannot be the case anywhere in the world.
A solution in the middle east should be made up and created by the people in the region themselves. As I argued against western intervention in Syria
on Huffpost some time ago, I reiterate here. Calling on the UN, the USA or the "west" to intervene does nothing to help ordinary people in the area. It simply exacerbates issues.
It is true of course that the USA provides enormous financing for Israel (and less for Gaza). Although even the US position on Israel has changed and is continuing to do so. The Economist this week considers the changing role of Europe and the US to Israel and the region and it is apparent that President Obama and others are increasingly viewing Israel as somewhat less necessary due to the new contours of geopolitical realities. No more Arab Nationalism and Cold War to deal with and an illiterate grasp of post Arab spring requirements have meant it is somewhat of a thorn in its side often.
I have always believed it is possible to have in that region a solution that is based on federations, where all people can live alongside one another. That is based on believing in people, together, resolving common problems and struggles. The last few weeks have made it far more clear though that many are not interested in a nuanced and difficult discussion. Not just in the press (clearly not dominated by "Jewish interests" for anyone who takes a glance anywhere) but general conversations and across Social Media, things have become a rant.
One may not believe that Zionism is the solution to anyone's problem, born as it is out of the European horror of a failure of society and anti-Enlightenment. However, the current climate of racist, anti-Jewish invective makes transparent a new very worrying development. One can be opposed to shelling civilians and think it is wrong without going along with this new zeitgeist to show how "emotionally literate" one is by posting cheap and shallow social media messages about Gaza (but not in so many other places).
Real freedom comes from having a political project, a plan and aiming to convince people to get together to organize around principles to achieve goals. This is not being offered. Instead we are witnessing - and some are participating in an invitation to hate and pour scorn - yet no talk of possible solutions and freedom.
In his astonishing new book, The Quest for a Moral Compass, the writer and commentator Kenan Malik charts the history of humanity's attempt to make sense of the world across the ages. He soars and digs deeply and explores our exploits from every region. What is so inspiring is the attempts to understand, to improve our knowledge of the world and ourselves. Taking in everyone from Socrates to Ibn Rushud, Kongzi to Fung Yu Lan and many others - he gradually begins to present the case for the world being in our grasp at all times.
We can always make and remake our world. However in order to do that, a desire to understand and be clear is essential. I do not see many places where people are looking and arguing for genuine solutions with regard to Gaza and Israel. Instead I see lots of consensus. Bland consensus, dressed up loudly shouting, blindly pointing and worryingly ignorant.
Having a calm and clear, honest debate would be very welcome in the midst of what at times seems to verge on near-hysteria.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Thursday, October 03, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
News Round up 17 March '13 BBC London Radio, Nikki Bedi show
6 key pieces from the news in the past week, from Chris Huhune/ Vicky Pryce to Leveson and more...
BBC London
Monday, February 11, 2013
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Friday, August 03, 2012
Beyond the Pale - freedom in America and UK - From "The American" 2012
Beyond the Pale
I'm not a racist, but...used to be the fairly popular precursor to racist comments in the past. These days, it is freedom of speech that is on the receiving end of such treatment.
So I will take two stories, one from either side of the pond, to illustrate how it is becoming acceptable to take the approach that “I'm all for freedom, bu
t...”. The but in the sentenc ll invariably refer to something that is just too unsavory, despicable or gauche and utterly offensive. Of course, that is precisely the type of thing that has to be protected by freedom of speech – as nobody ever wanted to censor anything that didn't offend anyone.
So we have that stupid student, Liam Stacey who apparently gets drunk and rather than gushing bile or nonsense in a local student bar where no one pays him any attention (or in a real bar where he gets a right-hander) he decides to Tweet his views about Bolton footballer Fabrice Muamba's collapse at FA Cup quarter-final clash with Tottenham Hotspur at White Hart Lane. Now while his remarks were pitifully distasteful “LOL (laugh out loud). F*** Muamba. He's dead!!” - the far bigger concern and danger is the idea that we are not permitted to write or say what we think without the risk of being imprisoned. Stacey was sentenced to 56 days in prison.
What is quite incredible is that those who once would have held the line against such an outrageous act, those who consider themselves as Liberal or formerly 'Left wing' seem to so often be at the forefront of encouraging this chillingly censorious climate. No doubt, because Stacey went on to respond with racist comments, he was deemed as someone who was not the 'right kind' of person who deserves freedom of speech. If freedom of speech is only allocated to certain 'types' of people, we have lost any meaningful sense of it. As Musa Okwonga explained on The Independent blog in what seemed to be misgivings about the sentence – if the aim is to prevent rampant racism then certain popular offensive sites such as TheFunnyRacist should be pursued and closed. This is the logical conclusion of banning sentiments we do not like.
Of course, historically, almost any challenge to widely held views was offensive. Universal suffrage, freedom and equality for all regardless of race or gender – and the idea that we are children who cannot cope with nasty ideas, or worse, that we will somehow be overtaken by age old psychotic madness when reading certain words, is far more insidious and dangerous for society than drunk students or racist ideas – which are far better exposed to the daylight of enlightened debate, where those of us confident in our ideas to dispense with flawed ideas can win the intellectual and practical arguments.
Across the water, Rutgers University was the setting for a tragic situation – that then solidified the idea of “hate crimes”. Tyler Clementi, an eighteen year old student was filmed in September 2010 in his dorm room with another man, by his room mate Dharun Ravi. Ravi posted the video of the two kissing online and made comments on Twitter and had allegedly planned to post a second video. Ravi and Molly Wei a female student, were charged with Cyber-voyeurism at the time. However in March, following an outpouring of anger from a range of groups and individuals, Dharun Ravi was charged with a “Hate Crime” - namely, he was found guilty of “invasion of privacy, hindering apprehension, witness tampering, and all four of the bias intimidation charges”.
In regard to the viewing on September 19, the jury concluded that Ravi did not act with the purpose to intimidate either Clementi or his guest because of their sexual orientation, but that Clementi was intimidated and reasonably believed that he had been targeted because of his sexual orientation. Tyler Clementi committed suicide by jumping from the George Washington Bridge on 22 September 2010.
Once again, it is certainly the case that some people have some views that many consider “beyond the pale”. However, “hate crimes” seem to magnify something where already we have laws for crime. As Richard Cohen wonders in the Washington Post, why is it that beating up someone is somehow less of a crime if they are not black or Jewish? Worse though, is how “hate crime” and “hate speech” is now intertwined – and students on campus and adults everywhere run the risk of being prosecuted, whether at a soccer match or in the local pub, for making comments.
Emily Bazelon, Senior Editor at Slate, wrote in the New York Times Op-Ed of how Ravi should be held, as an 18 year old adult, accountable for invasion of privacy on campus – and for that there are already policies established. However, as she rightly pointed out, the precedent for using so-called hate crime legislation leads to freedom eroding consequences.
We all know that famous video of Paris Hilton having sex which made her “career” and the claim to privacy by celebrities is problematic, as pointed out by UK journalist Tessa Mayes. Certainly, context is everything, however if the video that Ravi filmed of his room mate had been a man kissing a woman and he'd then been shunned or embarrassed in front of his fellow students and decided to kill himself, the hate crime tag could not have been applied. The obsession with bullying has mixed alongside the freedom-eroding “hate speech” outlook to create an America where formerly there is freedom of speech, but only if you do not say something that is offensive to certain particular groups.
We cannot hope for a second to win the hearts and minds of people to change and improve and transform this world if we continually try to limit, stifle, shut down and censor unpallatable words and ideas. The real outrage in all of this, is that it has become acceptable to fall back on the Mantra “Well, I am all for free speech, but...”.
At a time where journalists and academics seem to be falling over themselves alongside celebrities such as Hugh Grant to support the Leveson Inquiry and further shackling of the press on the spurious basis that Tabloids control the masses' minds and in reaction to the Murdoch Moment, I think the quote from the former footballer Stan Collymore goes to the heart of the matter. Distrusting of ordinary people and their ability to make decisions independently of some noxious ideas, he rants, “Seems to be a few who think that calling someone a W*g, ni***r or c**n and being arrested for it is an infringement of F[reedom] o[f] S[peech]. Idiots,” he tweeted. “It starts with a word, it ends in a stabbing somewhere. That’s why it’s illegal. Soppy liberal tree huggers. Don’t have a clue.”
Maybe we should argue for Collymore's arrest on the basis that it is offensive to call any human being an Idiot. It is not used to describe patients any longer and is pretty unpleasant if you look it up in the dictionary. But I am for having all the stupid, idiotic and offensive ideas fought out and not shoved under the carpet and banned. It is only when ideas and views are “beyond the pale” that freedom of speech matters. In these oh so sensitive, yet desensitized times, where Moral Panics play out in a realm of little morality, anyone who believes in freedom needs to take a stand against the attack on free speech.
Just in case you think these are isolated incidents, from sport to theater, University and beyond this chilling climate is expanding. It isn't only sports fans who will have noted the recent outrage at Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen's suspension for five games. This was for saying, in a Time magazine interview that he "loved" and respected Fidel Castro for avoiding being killed when so many people were out to get rid of him. For that offence to some people (his admiration, not even of the Cuban leader's politics, although that hardly matters) he has been vilified and hung out to dry somewhat. Closer to the UK, there is an attempt to ban the Israeli National Theater group, Habima, from performing at The Globe Theater's Olympiad series because it had performed in settlement areas. Of course, we should remember, when groups get uninvited, banned, silenced, self censor or censored, it is not discriminatory but ends up being simply about any group that feels "offended". (Hence Leeds University Jewish Society recently uninvited a guest speaker for fear of offending Muslims and so it goes on). Adults can be offended without dying. We in fact, have a right to offend and be offended - and our great achievement is that we can use our intelligence to win arguments and expose flawed ideas - or be beaten by better ones.
Just in case you think these are isolated incidents, from sport to theater, University and beyond this chilling climate is expanding. It isn't only sports fans who will have noted the recent outrage at Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen's suspension for five games. This was for saying, in a Time magazine interview that he "loved" and respected Fidel Castro for avoiding being killed when so many people were out to get rid of him. For that offence to some people (his admiration, not even of the Cuban leader's politics, although that hardly matters) he has been vilified and hung out to dry somewhat. Closer to the UK, there is an attempt to ban the Israeli National Theater group, Habima, from performing at The Globe Theater's Olympiad series because it had performed in settlement areas. Of course, we should remember, when groups get uninvited, banned, silenced, self censor or censored, it is not discriminatory but ends up being simply about any group that feels "offended". (Hence Leeds University Jewish Society recently uninvited a guest speaker for fear of offending Muslims and so it goes on). Adults can be offended without dying. We in fact, have a right to offend and be offended - and our great achievement is that we can use our intelligence to win arguments and expose flawed ideas - or be beaten by better ones.
It's time to grow up...and go on the offensive.
Alan Miller is Director of The Vibe Bar in Brick Lane and co-founder of the Old Truman Brewery and runs The New York Salon in NYC where he is a film producer and director Www.nysalon.org
http://www.theamerican.co.uk/pr/index.php
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Friday, November 12, 2010
What a riot
Recent events in France where violence erupted in response to proposals to raise the pension age to 62 from 60, seemed to demonstrate that rather than any kind of revolution occurring, what we were seeing was more of a reaction that reflected a widespread disappointment amongst middle class and older people - where the youth took up the mantle not of a new world and another dawn, a brighter tomorrow - but rather something that, for them, would be decades away. It seemed that this was a riot with extremely narrow preoccupations - as riots may often be - but not tagged to any sense of some alternative solution to ideas of resources, aging population and society.
Fast forward to the students in London who on Wednesday were protesting against government cuts and lifting of caps on university tuition fees and we see something similar. For the most part, as all commentators have noted, it was a peaceful demonstration. Then, a small contingent broke away and then some smashed windows at Millbank, where the Conservative offices are and went up on the roof.
Various young people have now been arrested - one of which is the young man who allegedly threw a fire extinguisher off the roof. The fact that these students were utterly naive and somehow expected that there would be no consequences - and hence not trying particularly hard to disguise themselves - is indicative of the broader sense of childish outlook of both the students: who are absolutely in their right to be outraged and to challenge the deep and problematic cuts, but also of the police, who were completey taken by "surprise" on Wednesday.
Comments hurtling around the blogosphere, that students were "finally protesting" or "up in arms" and by commentators who thought this reflected some kind of sea change miss the point here that unfortunately, even though some young people have aspirations to see challenge things, the limited political outlook and the domination of the idea that TINA rules - (There Is No Alternative to the market) ensures that while these outbursts look radical and can take a violent form, they have little to offer by way of alternatives.
In fact, the Metropolitan Police, in the age of therapeutic policing, was clearly ill prepared and did not know how to handle events (although were filming everyone and hence the subsequent arrests). This is very very different to the scenes of the Poll Tax riots 20 years ago or the inner city riots of London, Toxteth and elsewhere. It suits some, who have a yearning to go back to the past of easy formulaic assessments of what is happening around us, but, as was once said so eloquently, the past really is a different country - and things were done very differently there.
The British commentator and sociologist Frank Furedi has pointed out that in fact while young people have always been the ones ready to change the world, currently their views reflect the more entrenched views of older people in society, who if anything, are desperate to keep things somehow the same.
We can rest assured however that the police will aim to come down extremely hard on the protestors - there is talk of an attempted murder charge (for the fire extinguisher) - and this combination of not knowing how to handle situations and being naive will not help anyone searching for solutions to our problems.
While I responded to various hopefuls who thought a) the French protests were a sign of some new day and b) the London protests heralded a '68 moment, Claire Fox the Director of the UK Institute of Ideas pointed out how student activists when disrupting a Tory event had ‘F*** the Fees’ placards and their major political statement was ‘for every £1 invested in universities, the country gets £3.65 back!’ This type of attitude will never get to the root of the issue and shares a similar bean-counting mentality as the government. It's extremely frustrating that the appetite for something better among young people will be squashed so quickly for lack of better ideas. What we need, is a difficult debate, internationally, about how we organize our society, our resources, education and pensions as well as society generally. Until we get some serious discussion on this going, we won't get past naive knee jerk reactions.
Recent events in France where violence erupted in response to proposals to raise the pension age to 62 from 60, seemed to demonstrate that rather than any kind of revolution occurring, what we were seeing was more of a reaction that reflected a widespread disappointment amongst middle class and older people - where the youth took up the mantle not of a new world and another dawn, a brighter tomorrow - but rather something that, for them, would be decades away. It seemed that this was a riot with extremely narrow preoccupations - as riots may often be - but not tagged to any sense of some alternative solution to ideas of resources, aging population and society.
Fast forward to the students in London who on Wednesday were protesting against government cuts and lifting of caps on university tuition fees and we see something similar. For the most part, as all commentators have noted, it was a peaceful demonstration. Then, a small contingent broke away and then some smashed windows at Millbank, where the Conservative offices are and went up on the roof.
Various young people have now been arrested - one of which is the young man who allegedly threw a fire extinguisher off the roof. The fact that these students were utterly naive and somehow expected that there would be no consequences - and hence not trying particularly hard to disguise themselves - is indicative of the broader sense of childish outlook of both the students: who are absolutely in their right to be outraged and to challenge the deep and problematic cuts, but also of the police, who were completey taken by "surprise" on Wednesday.
Comments hurtling around the blogosphere, that students were "finally protesting" or "up in arms" and by commentators who thought this reflected some kind of sea change miss the point here that unfortunately, even though some young people have aspirations to see challenge things, the limited political outlook and the domination of the idea that TINA rules - (There Is No Alternative to the market) ensures that while these outbursts look radical and can take a violent form, they have little to offer by way of alternatives.
In fact, the Metropolitan Police, in the age of therapeutic policing, was clearly ill prepared and did not know how to handle events (although were filming everyone and hence the subsequent arrests). This is very very different to the scenes of the Poll Tax riots 20 years ago or the inner city riots of London, Toxteth and elsewhere. It suits some, who have a yearning to go back to the past of easy formulaic assessments of what is happening around us, but, as was once said so eloquently, the past really is a different country - and things were done very differently there.
The British commentator and sociologist Frank Furedi has pointed out that in fact while young people have always been the ones ready to change the world, currently their views reflect the more entrenched views of older people in society, who if anything, are desperate to keep things somehow the same.
We can rest assured however that the police will aim to come down extremely hard on the protestors - there is talk of an attempted murder charge (for the fire extinguisher) - and this combination of not knowing how to handle situations and being naive will not help anyone searching for solutions to our problems.
While I responded to various hopefuls who thought a) the French protests were a sign of some new day and b) the London protests heralded a '68 moment, Claire Fox the Director of the UK Institute of Ideas pointed out how student activists when disrupting a Tory event had ‘F*** the Fees’ placards and their major political statement was ‘for every £1 invested in universities, the country gets £3.65 back!’ This type of attitude will never get to the root of the issue and shares a similar bean-counting mentality as the government. It's extremely frustrating that the appetite for something better among young people will be squashed so quickly for lack of better ideas. What we need, is a difficult debate, internationally, about how we organize our society, our resources, education and pensions as well as society generally. Until we get some serious discussion on this going, we won't get past naive knee jerk reactions.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Thursday, December 18, 2008
2008 - An "historic" year...but why?
What a year! Bear Stearns and Northern Rock collapsed and Lloyds TSB stepped in to take over a faltering HBOS. One minute Lehman Brothers was the golden boy on the block, the next it was gone, replaced with the bright blue logo of Barclays…2008 was of course also witness to the most expensive Olympics ever and the election of Barack Obama as the 44th US President
THE HOSPITAL - CLICK HERE TO READ
THE HOSPITAL - CLICK HERE TO READ
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Viva Mumbai! The Hosptial
The Hosptial
Alan Miller ponders India's position on the world stage and the lack of philosophy behind the attacks. But are our leaders responding in the right manner and how should we feel about the future?
Alan Miller ponders India's position on the world stage and the lack of philosophy behind the attacks. But are our leaders responding in the right manner and how should we feel about the future?
Friday, November 28, 2008
Letter from America - The Hospital
Who's team are you on, Matt Damon's or Sarah Palin's? Alan Miller of the Huffington Post argues that the media's treatment of Sarah Palin was both unsisterly and eltitist. Here he argues that the political debate has been scuppered by a focus on lifestyle choices, not policies.
The Hospital
The Hospital
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Friday, October 03, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Letter from America - The Hospital- 18 Sep 08
Is the world goin' down in a whirlpool of financial doom, celebrity domination and the cult of personality? Alan Miller writes from New York on the skewed importance placed on the personal lives of the US presidential candidates. Is Palin a victim of a savage press...and is it relevant?
Are you a ‘Wal Mart Mum’ or a ‘Target Mum’? Maybe you are a ‘Nascar Dad’ or an ‘NPR dad’? Gone are the days of course where there were Democrats versus Republicans because that requires politics of some kind. The disintegration of competing ideologies has left us witnessing the sad rump of what has come to replace it: lifestyle identity politics.
With all the fanfare that surrounded the OP (Obama Phenomenon) we were lead to believe by a largely wide-eyed press that America was undergoing a radical transformation somehow, with widespread participation in mainstream politics. It is of course true that we have seen a (very encouraging) heightened level of enthusiasm among young people. However, Obama’s strategy has simply been to declare his personal credentials. Over and over again. So while we know where he grew up and about his parenting and falling in love, we know little still about any broader political principles. That is largely because there aren’t any. Indeed, Obama – somewhat like Tony Blair before him and the trailblazer for the dash to the centre Bill Clinton – asks us to elect him on the basis of his background, multicultural experiences and conscience.
Meanwhile, John McCain’s continuing reference to being tied up in the Sixties didn’t seem to cut the cheese so well – so now we have a VP candidate who is being both promoted and denounced entirely on her personal behaviour and outlook. Let’s just make the point clearly now for the record, that it does not matter how good or bad a parent you are – this has absolutely no bearing on you as a politician. Interestingly, those who perceive themselves as more ‘liberal’ are increasingly the ones, on blogs, late night TV shows and the radio viciously ripping in to Sarah Palin on the basis of her personal decisions as a mother. While I absolutely support the right of women to chose when and how they make decisions about their own bodies, I find it despicable the way many have attacked Palin – not at a political level engaging any ideas, but rather personally.
Thus we are then faced with all the nonsense about lipstick. Try hard as they may to distance themselves somewhat from this mess, it is the Democrats who are exposing themselves as the snobby patronising elitists with contempt for ordinary people in the US. Many in Britain, who like to wonder pleasantly “how so many Americans can be so dumb” when referring to electing Bush for a second term, also share this nasty outlook. The problem is though, not that there are so many stupid people out there, but rather that we don’t have any politics any more. Only lifestyle choices.
David Brooks wrote about an emerging demographic in his Bobos in Paradise and more recently we have seen a further “balkanisation” of Americans with Bob Bishop’s The Big Sort:Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart and what we are witnessing is a new moral outlook based on where you shop, what you buy to eat, wear or drive. Thus we have everything from “Hippies for Obama” to “Polar Bears for Obama”, “Latinos for Obama” and even “space for Obama” – I kid you not.
This is a travesty and reduces politics to a schoolyard fashion parade. Having just returned from eastern Europe, I was reminded once again of the legacy of failed ideas on our world – and reminded also of the need to be clear about the times we live in and the way we understand them in order to affect any change. Someone once said that “All that is solid melts in to air” as the new world was being forged out of the old, material and at the level of ideas. Now what we are facing is the ossification of life with ranting and personal attacks replacing the clash of serious ideas wedded to larger political principles and ideas. Let’s all have a stab and holding the line and exposing this utter nonsense for what it is – on both sides of the pond. We are not after all what we eat, drink or wear, but rather much more. It is high time we denounced this nonsense for what it is and insist on a serious clash of ideas about how we are to live.
http://www.polarbearsforobama.com/
http://www.spaceforobama.org/
Are you a ‘Wal Mart Mum’ or a ‘Target Mum’? Maybe you are a ‘Nascar Dad’ or an ‘NPR dad’? Gone are the days of course where there were Democrats versus Republicans because that requires politics of some kind. The disintegration of competing ideologies has left us witnessing the sad rump of what has come to replace it: lifestyle identity politics.
With all the fanfare that surrounded the OP (Obama Phenomenon) we were lead to believe by a largely wide-eyed press that America was undergoing a radical transformation somehow, with widespread participation in mainstream politics. It is of course true that we have seen a (very encouraging) heightened level of enthusiasm among young people. However, Obama’s strategy has simply been to declare his personal credentials. Over and over again. So while we know where he grew up and about his parenting and falling in love, we know little still about any broader political principles. That is largely because there aren’t any. Indeed, Obama – somewhat like Tony Blair before him and the trailblazer for the dash to the centre Bill Clinton – asks us to elect him on the basis of his background, multicultural experiences and conscience.
Meanwhile, John McCain’s continuing reference to being tied up in the Sixties didn’t seem to cut the cheese so well – so now we have a VP candidate who is being both promoted and denounced entirely on her personal behaviour and outlook. Let’s just make the point clearly now for the record, that it does not matter how good or bad a parent you are – this has absolutely no bearing on you as a politician. Interestingly, those who perceive themselves as more ‘liberal’ are increasingly the ones, on blogs, late night TV shows and the radio viciously ripping in to Sarah Palin on the basis of her personal decisions as a mother. While I absolutely support the right of women to chose when and how they make decisions about their own bodies, I find it despicable the way many have attacked Palin – not at a political level engaging any ideas, but rather personally.
Thus we are then faced with all the nonsense about lipstick. Try hard as they may to distance themselves somewhat from this mess, it is the Democrats who are exposing themselves as the snobby patronising elitists with contempt for ordinary people in the US. Many in Britain, who like to wonder pleasantly “how so many Americans can be so dumb” when referring to electing Bush for a second term, also share this nasty outlook. The problem is though, not that there are so many stupid people out there, but rather that we don’t have any politics any more. Only lifestyle choices.
David Brooks wrote about an emerging demographic in his Bobos in Paradise and more recently we have seen a further “balkanisation” of Americans with Bob Bishop’s The Big Sort:Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart and what we are witnessing is a new moral outlook based on where you shop, what you buy to eat, wear or drive. Thus we have everything from “Hippies for Obama” to “Polar Bears for Obama”, “Latinos for Obama” and even “space for Obama” – I kid you not.
This is a travesty and reduces politics to a schoolyard fashion parade. Having just returned from eastern Europe, I was reminded once again of the legacy of failed ideas on our world – and reminded also of the need to be clear about the times we live in and the way we understand them in order to affect any change. Someone once said that “All that is solid melts in to air” as the new world was being forged out of the old, material and at the level of ideas. Now what we are facing is the ossification of life with ranting and personal attacks replacing the clash of serious ideas wedded to larger political principles and ideas. Let’s all have a stab and holding the line and exposing this utter nonsense for what it is – on both sides of the pond. We are not after all what we eat, drink or wear, but rather much more. It is high time we denounced this nonsense for what it is and insist on a serious clash of ideas about how we are to live.
http://www.polarbearsforobama.com/
http://www.spaceforobama.org/
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
"'88 and all that..."
The Hospital Club 30 July 08
In July '88 a group of art students led by Damien Hirst mounted an exhibition in London’s Docklands. It was also when Acid House gurned into the mainstream...and Everything started with an E. Founder of the Truman Brewery, Alan Miller ponders the rave phenomenon and its effect on the wider culture.
In July '88 a group of art students led by Damien Hirst mounted an exhibition in London’s Docklands. It was also when Acid House gurned into the mainstream...and Everything started with an E. Founder of the Truman Brewery, Alan Miller ponders the rave phenomenon and its effect on the wider culture.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Zombies In Waiting
What Orwell Didn't Know: Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics, edited by András Szántó
Culture Wars
Culture Wars
Monday, March 31, 2008
Monday, March 03, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Monday, January 07, 2008
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Monday, December 03, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Friday, November 09, 2007
Monday, November 05, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Monday, May 07, 2007
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)