Much ado about a Nobel Peace Prize

By stroke of fate I was in China at the time of the announcement of the 2010 Nobel Peace prize - which as is well known now, has gone to the gaoled Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo.

I have to admit that my first reaction was: typical! After mucking things up with Obama last year, the Nobel peace committee have overcompensated this year by going for someone in gaol in a non-democratic state. (There can be little doubt though that it was a much better decision than last year!).

However, there I was, in China. So naturally one wondered if we would feel it at all, and it was certainly curious that of the eight days that I was there, I only received one complimentary newspaper from the hotel - the one that happened to be carrying the almost, but not quite innocuous article about how this was going to damage the bilateral relations between Norway and China. Mostly it was the blank screen on CNN which was the most obvious way one noticed it. (The photograph of the "blank" TV above is in fact of CNN - blanked out for the duration of the report. A few days later when the same thing happened one realised immediately that there was clearly a report on the house report of Liu Xiaobo's wife! How quickly one got used to it...).

But it made me think of other things too. I remember recently seeing a documentary series on BBC - on South Africa under Apartheid. I remember in particular a woman being interviewed, a white, English-speaking South African - who was so annoyed that Desmond Tutu had received the Nobel Peace prize (though for life and death of me, I cannot exactly recall WHY she was so upset). Somehow though, she perceived it as a slap in the face, she seemed to almost take it personally. This is not unlike how the Chinese are reacting. It is true, they have undertaken tremendous reforms lately (which I do not think the South Africans had done at the same time). When discussing another issue (climate change and the "Copenhagen Accord" as it happens), I got a sense that China takes itself very seriously and as such does not appreciate its efforts being seemingly ignored or pocketed. Certainly it is useful to take into account that this is a very different culture from Western cultures. What this means for how one encourages such a society to reform is unclear to me. But I can understand the validity of such offenses.

In the end though, experiencing the smog which is probably so normal for the Chinese living in big cities that they barely notice it, being afraid for those who being kept in the dark of the Nobel Peace prize, kindly expressed an interest in visiting Norway - I realised that the freedoms and empowerment which I have is not to be taken lightly. Far too many in the world are not as fortunate.

Follow on - banned books week

Yesterday, I must concede, I was wondering about under what conditions I think a book should be banned. Today I came across this report on Guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/sep/29/defend-novel-school-ban). In this case (and without having read the book myself) I agree that the book should not be banned. I do think it is a good thing that books also deal with teenage rape, including what may be motivating the rapist! As long as the overall message is clear then I certainly think it is better that kids are introduced to the real world through a book than through a personal experience or even on TV or at the movies.

Easy peasy.

Banned book week

I always thought that the first banned book that I read was Burger's Daughter by Nadine Gordimer. Then again I grew up in Apartheid South Africa where banned books were a bit of a thing. Ironically "To kill a mockingbird" by Harper Lee was one of my school set-work books. The fact that this book has been banned places n the United States I find quite amazing. So much for the American free speech.

Of course under those circumstances I automatically and without much reflection am against banning. To be honest though I realise that I had to give it more thought for other circumstances.

Of course personally I practice self-censorship when it comes to books. I remember being shocked when I saw Mein kampf by Adolf Hitler on sale in Geneva, Switzerland. I was of the view that it should not be available for sale! I was tempted to buy it and burn it! But perhaps advice that someone twittered around the Koran-burning threat on 911 by a church in the US is worth further consideration: reading the book should be a prerequisite if you intend to burn it. I do not intend to ever read Mein kampf. If I start a book I don't like - whatever the reaon - I stop. I give the book away.

When it comes to children I would hope that the parents are aware of what their kids are reading and talk to them about it. That is how I would've handled my children reading Harry Potter (something many christian parents would not let their children read).

Which leaves me wondering whether I am against banning books. As I am currently becoming more aware of violence against women and children and other such things, I don't want to say entirely and unconditionally so. But far too many books have been banned which I do not agree with! As with so many things, it's all about where one draws the line. At some point or another far too many fabulous books have been banned and that is definitely a problem.


I consider Burger's daughter by Nadine Gordimer, and I write what I like by Steve Biko to be probably THE two defining books of my life. They were both banned and that was without a doubt a shame!

source for covers: fantasticfiction.co.uk and Open library

Eight things that made their mark on me from ”The Autobiography of Malcolm X.”

1. Am I sure I am not a racist? One is the product of the context of one’s life, and I grew up in apartheid South Africa – a white South African. It would therefore perhaps not be any surprise that I have been quite petrified of being considered a racist. (At least as it pertains to ”black” people, less worried about being disparaging about ”whites”!). Nevertheless, this book was quite tough to real, especially in the beginning – where the author is quite candid about his feelings about white people, all white people. Which put me on the defensive, quite decisively so! However in the end I made peace with it. The truth was that I could understand it. We all do the best we can.

2. An indictment of Christianity – This book does not make me proud of my fellow Christians. Why is it that we have participated and perpetuated so much racism within the Christian church? I just do not understand! It is shameful, and something which needs much repentance.

3. Why he was Malcom X – I hate to sound pretentious, but I was actually moved when it emerged why he changed his name from Malcolm Little to Malcolm X. It is a dramatic indictment on the history of African-Americans. Nor can I look away from the irony of his original surname: Little. I could not think of a less appropriate name for this particular man, who was anything, but.

4. Thinking for yourself: there is no doubt that Malcolm X was a phenomenal man. Yet I am not sure that I will be able to fully appreciate what it was about him. If for no other reason that my the draw of genetics, I am a ”white”. A white South African at that. Yet even I could sense a greatness about him. What struck me the most, however, was the realisation that great men do not spring full grown from the head of Zeus! They are the product of their lives, and Malcolm X was no exception. It was particularly striking when he realises that he has not been thinking for himself, but rather blindly been following Elijah Mohammed’s thinking. Even Malcolm X had to figure out what he himself thought about things for himself.

5. Racism in 2010: Reading books by black consciousness writers have been defnining moments in my life. When I read ”I write what I like” by Steve Biko, I discovered that one of my colleagues at university at the time had been a fellow detainee and torturer victim of Steve Biko. This brought the evils of apartheid home to me such that I have spent years working on reconciling myself with the fact that, like it or not, I am a white South African. This book was also amongst the most thought provoking I can remember reading. At more or less the same time as I read this book two racist-related things hit the media. In one an African-American employee of the Department of Agriculture in the US was forced out of her job as she was perceived to be racist, i.e. towards whites. As it turned out she was anything but, and the entire affair is mind-boggling. At the same time a South African born writer was accused of racism when an article he wrote was perceived as juxtaposing car guards with baboons. I have to admit I needed to be explained where the racism lay in the article, as I did not see it myself. This latter situation made me realise that one has to accept that where so much racism has been sown over the years, there is a harvest which is being reaped! It is that simple, but means that we are no nearer to a non-racist society.

6. Who was the real Malcolm X? I did some research on the book and discovered that it is not without contraversy. There are those who believe that Alex Haley (who is apparently a more conservative African American) has ”coloured” the Malcolm X of the last chapter of the book. I am a bit sceptical of the completely changed Malcolm X, it is just a bit too much somehow. An example is that earlier in the book he contends that the biggest challenge for a interracial couple would not be the white community, but the black community’s response. However in the end, he no longer this an interracial relationship is problematic. Just because he no longer believes that white people are the devil incarnate does not mean that there would be nuanced responses to an interracial relationship. For someone who has analysed racial relations as much as Malcolm X it seems a completely unnuanced about-turn. I am just dubious, I like the human, struggling Malcolm X, I thought he was a worthy hero. Not so sure about the saint in the last chapters of the book.

7. There is something to be said about knowing something about famous people. I realised that there are so many famous people that I actually do not know anything about, other than that they are famous (and why they are famous). I certainly feel richer knowing more about who Malcolm Little/X was.

8. Know yourself. There is nothing like reading someone else’s journey through their life – and the book is written in such a way that you develop along with Malcolm X into who he became – to make you wonder about your own journey. As the sugar packets in South Africa from Hewletts say: Life is not a destination, but a journey.

The new poet laureate - W.S. Merwin

Okay, so what exactly is a poet laureate? It is clearly an auspicious thing for the poet, and I know that Cecil Day Lewis, one of my favourites was one, but more than that I am not actually sure. Are they just English or do Americans have one too? I really do have to find out more. Nevertheless, W.S. Merwin has just been named one, and the New York Review of Books helpfully published a short poem of his , which I think is just fabulous!

It is called: Why Some People do not Read Poetry

Because they already know that it means
stopping and without stopping they know that
beyond stopping it will mean listening
listening without hearing and maybe
then hearing without hearing and what would
they hear then what good would it be to them
like some small animal crossing the road
suddenly there but not seeming to move
at night and they are late and may be on
the wrong road over the mountain with all
the others asleep and not hitting it
that time as though forgetting it again

Congratulations!

To be quite honest

It is hard to write posts regularly when one has no audience. Wonder how many millions of wannabee bloggers there are out there other than me? (In the sense that blogging, like a conversation, requires at least two people to be communicating, otherwise it is just a "website").

But I will not give in! (I think)

Those who speak my language

I love when I read something someone else has said and it captures exactly what I have thought myself about something.

Like Eric Hobsbawm's comment about the Mona Lisa not speaking his language (she didn't speak mine either, but his comment did).

Peter Porter, a poet who I have not read passed away recently and the Guardian had one of his poem's on their site, where there was a phrase that did speak my language. It is from the poem "Random Ageist verses":

"Like Auden, I have always felt
The youngest person in the room."

The bit about Auden was tantalizing, but otherwise I do not think I could have expressed that sensation any better!

Life is an amazing experience!

On Friday I became the proud owner of a MacBook! Recently, in an episode of House, the patient (”the patient”) was a blogger, and kept reaching for her MacBook. I think it was a picture which I enjoyed, and now that I have my very own MacBook, perhaps I can get back into blogging.

Of course inspiration helps, and there is something about Europe (ahem, even Norway apparently :-) which seems to work in that respect, but to achieve everything which I would like to, I am going to have to be profoundly self-disciplined, which at the age of 37 will be no joke!

But to today’s comment. I love Star Trek. Not that I am a major "trekkie", in the sense that I do not know all sorts of arbitrary information about all the planets and humanoid species! But on an episode to episode basis, how things are treated raise wonderful questions about human life and consciousness. I have not read much fantasy or science fiction, but what I have read I have enjoyed for the most part, especially the latter (until this moment I hadn’t really separated the two in my mind, but after being at the library yesterday I have suddenly realised that there is a distinction, and I may be a greater fan of science fiction than of fantasy, but I digress).

I have just watched an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation on television. In it, an old, dying scientist manages to "cheat" death by inserting his consciousness into that of Data, an android. In the episode which I caught last week, Professor Moriarty (of Sherlock Holmes fame) was created by the computer when the charceter Geordi asked the computer to create an adversary in the holosuite which was capable of defeating Data, thereby requiring a programme with a consciousness, capable of learning. (I may have to learn more about the Star Trek technology and terminology if I am going to make a habit of writing about this).

These two episodes raise interesting questions about consciousness and intellect. The 24th century (??) Professor Moriarty, quite a formidable bad-guy you may imagine, who connects to and learns from the computer, nevertheless agrees to be ”saved” and be switched off (after putting in place an override which prevented the holosuite programme from being shut down). A somewhat tame ending (bearing in mind that the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movie is fresh in my mind) to such a character. Does this mean that the Professor Moriarty-”consciousness” is now lurking around the computer of the Starship Enterprise! Furthermore, Ira Graves, the brilliant scientist who inserts his intellect into Data, after realising that while he did not respect the rights of Data as an android, did not want to harm humans, then puts his intellect into the ship’s computer, and without Data’s consciousness, is no longer a danger. So yes, both of these intellects, with or without consciousness are now part of the computer of the Starship Enterprise. Hmmm, why does it not all add up somehow? Or perhaps it was only his intelligence, not his intellect, what is the difference between the two anyway? And consciousness, where does that fit in? From both of the above episodes I would think that it might be in the ability of both Professor Moriarty, and Ira Graves to make the decision to give in. Ah, rational man to the end.

Ironic, as while I write there is an episode of ”Nuremburg” on National Geographic, with film footage of the disposal (there is no other way of putting it) of bodies at Buchenwald.

Indeed, rationale man. Science fiction is a product of humanism, that humankind is essentially rationale and well, good. Though, to be fair. the darker side can be present in some cases.

Hmm, this will require further consideration.

My life in a changed climate

Well, it has been a while! And I certainly need to strategise more about what I do with this site (which I recently discovered at least one friend had actually checked out!)

So just to start things off, with my new life in climate change in a changed climate...

Why I love Harper's Weekly newsletter: such titbits as...

"Researchers determined that climate change could make the world more fragrant." and

"...hackers stole $4 million worth of carboncredits in European trading markets."

Welcome to my world, 24 February 2010!!