There is a joke -- not a funny one, the other kind -- about the difference between England and America. Wich is that England is a place in which a hundred miles is a long way, and America is a place where a hundred years is a long time.
-- Neil Gaiman
I've just read Neil's American Gods for the second time (this time as audio book, which lets me use my body and eyes for other things while reading). And it's a splendid book, warmly recommended. Rather demanding of the reader though, and rather gruesome in places. But funny and intelligent and intriguing.
11 comments:
It may be the other kind.
But I think it's not stupid either. It emphacizes the importance of perspective.
I had a very full of himself teacher in school, who liked to repeat that America isn't a real country, because "they have no civilization, no culture, they've barely been around for 200 years".
While "us phoenicians" invented the alphabet and brought it to the world, naturally.
It's strange, how these "nothings" seem to have made it rather okay in the world... especially compared to Lebanon! :-P
Besides, a linguistic study has shown that 50 years are enough for an isolated community to develop its own specific language through spontaneous evolution. I'd say 200 years are 4 times enough to develop a culture. Heck, with Hollywood, 5 years are more than sufficient to spread a U.S. trend across the planet!
Pascal,
Following up your comment. You should be talking about Lebanon. What will it mean to you if the current government is overthrown?
America is sort of like Mt Everest in that, at the top, you might not meet the brightest nor most cultured, but you will meet a determined striver. To get to America most had to cross either the Atlantic or Pacific. Not easy.
Perhaps we should discuss ways to filter out only the "best and brightest."
Um, okay. I guess living in a small country that everybody is interested in / concerned about doesn't make mean I'm an attention hog. Lebanon has many communities (18, I think), which makes politics very complicated. I'll have to give you a (not so) little course about things in order to make the situation clearer.
The main communities are :
- Christians, essentially maronites (a branch of catholicism). Altogether, they were the majority (>50%) before the 1975 war. Today, they have become the RELATIVE majority (around 45% I think), due to massive emigration among young christians, and the more active demography of muslims. You can easily picture the political consequences on the balance of power.
- Muslim chiites, estimated to a third of the population. (All figures are rough and unconfirmed, because of political biases.)
- Muslim sunnites. They and the chiites don't get along too well. They're the two main currents of Islam, and it's been tense ever since the initial schism.
- Druzes, a "marginal" current derived from islam, very few in the world, and thirsting for recognition. Most of them are in Lebanon, Syria and Israel. They make about 10% of the Lebanese.
Since the 1975 war, everybody has been fighting against everybody else and among themselves (rival factions), with varying foreign supports. El Bazaar Grande. For instance, the Hezbollah is by far the main and most popular movement among chiites, and is torn between its iranian origin and allegiance (Iran : No 1 chiite country in the world), its syrian alliances (currently under the carpet), and its lebanese positioning. It's not as black and white as the West sees it and Buch presents it. They are seen as "the Resistance" that drove off Israel from the South (which they did). And since their infamous terrorist activities in the Eighties, the leadership has changed, former and current being rivals. They're no angels, but they're much more than just a chiite Al-Qaeda. (Simple, huh?)
The 1975 situation was sparked by the problem of armed Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Being muslims, their presence could be used to tip the scales, which they did. Ouch. Their eventual implantation in Lebanon has been a major issue of dispute, because in such a small country the effect would be very important. The Sunnites would see it kindly to have their ranks increase to a majority. Chiites are "ready to fight to the end for the right of our displaced brothers to return to their rightful land". Partly out of anti-zionist spite, partly because the Palestinians are not chiites... Christians, of course, can't stand the idea of another major demographic earthquake to their disadvantage, logically seen as an outside plan (Kissinger's idea originally, I think), and a plot against Lebanon's identity and integrity.
Now, for about 15 years, Syria has been single ruler and master in Lebanon. After the fall of their ally the Soviet Union, we were the prize given to Hafez Assad by the USA for his stand against Saddam in the first Gulf War. :-(
The political scene was approximately as follows :
- People working with Syria, spread between zealous collaborators and those who submissively cooperated. Sometimes hard to tell apart.
- People against Syria, consisting of the exiled, the imprisoned and the dead. Many dead.
After the notorious assassination of Rafiq Hariri (who grew tired of collaborating), things changed. The zealous parties were sent on the sidelines. The cooperators turned against Syria. The imprisoned were released, and the bannished returned. And yet nothing became rosy. The current government stems from the elections held after the syrian withdrawal... but under the tailor-made biased Y2K electoral law dictated by Syria, as was dictated the term renewal of the current zealous President. All designed to create/maintain imbalance in the country, and make the syrian presence a necessity against chaos. So, the current Parliament and Government majority are anti-syrian, but by far they are not representative. They are, essentially, the Sunnites, Druzes, and some christian allies. The opposition are the rest of the christians, and the chiites, oddly brought together; it also comprizes sunnites and druzes, all denouncing widespread corruption in the current administration.
The actual crisis, therefore, comes from a grave imbalance in representativity of the people (essentially, the majority is artificial), and the fact that those in power are in great part the same that embezzled and ruined the country. For Syria initially, for themselves now. The heart of the conflict is, will they name a new President before, or after a fair electoral law has been finally signed? (In Lebanon, the Parliament elects the President.) They're only after power, and getting desperate because the clock is ticking and deadlines draw close.
Meanwhile, the opposition have tried to work on the opposite angle, coming to an initial understanding that paves the way to national reconciliation, and including the Hezbollah agreeing to one day lay down their weapons. (A historical premiere!) This could be a golden chance for a peaceful settlement, if given a chance.
Underneath this struggle, lies in the shadows the issue of whether the local Palestinians (well-armed and still allied with Syria) will be imposed on us and implanted in Lebanon to please the USA and Israel, at the price of a new critical local instability. Is Lebanon destined to become a democracy, or to return to the old-but-tried formula of a police regime praised by the superpowers? That is the question, David ol' buddy.
What it APPEARS like, from the Western media focusing against Syria, is a planned syro-iranian coup against the majority. Well, for once they needn't be involved, because it is once again the internal instability that is responsible. A true national reconciliation is what's needed. Alas, it also appears highly unlikely. Power is a drug, and very hard to let go of. The current government isn't going to be overthrown. It should just fulfill its interim role, step down, and let democracy return for real. (Fat chance!)
There have been rumours about the latest assassination being suddenly very different in style because it wasn't ordered by the same people as the bombings. Some even suggested an inside job. But I'm not treading on THIS slippery ground. Time will tell.
Perhaps we should discuss ways to filter out only the "best and brightest."
I'm not sure about that. Seems a bit like elitist segregation to me. The filtering should only occur by itself, those feeling at home staying, those not liking it leaving. There have been some frictions lately, but still, I strongly believe the best incentive for tolerance is by giving the example. Then maybe we can all learn from each other.
Unless you weren't referring to the blog? Still, in the real world, we can all learn from each other too, and maybe pull each other toward the top. Room isn't limited on top of Mount Enlightenment.
"they have no civilization, no culture, they've barely been around for 200 years".
is that why thousands try to illegally cross our borders and live here? is this the reason we are the only superpower left in the world?
It's strange, how these "nothings" seem to have made it rather okay in the world... especially compared to Lebanon! :-P
I'm glad you said what you did defending America. She isn't perfect but she's trying. Thank you.
but you will meet a determined striver. To get to America most had to cross either the Atlantic or Pacific. Not easy.
Perhaps we should discuss ways to filter out only the "best and brightest."
To David,
I consider you one of the best and brightest with your comment.
Power is a drug, and very hard to let go of.
Alas my fellow man, I too find myself wrestling with this dilema. Being in charge for some is a difficult trump.
Direction and stability are often a neccessary evil, but someone has to be in control, if not lawlessness would run rampant.
I try to be a fair leader over my group but at times my servants still remain at odds within themselves.
But I think all is not lost. Productivity and success can still be reached if the masses can peacefully come together.
"Direction and stability are often a neccessary evil, but someone has to be in control, if not lawlessness would run rampant."
"Laws" are made by those in control, therefore so is "lawlessness." (Control is an addiction.)
I'm with Pascal when he said, "The filtering should only occur by itself,"
And there is plenty of room atop Mt Enlightenment. Yes. Room up there, but sparsely populated.
I'm a peaceful anarchist, and I highly recommend the mind set.
Those in control are always inclined to call complexity lawlessness. And if they are thoroughly exasperated, they will call it anarchy, when it would be okay with me if they called it chaos... just not anarchy. Anarchy is complexity working to the benefit of the greatest number of humankind.
David,
Are you sure you're not in fact a peaceful chaotic? ;-)
"And there is plenty of room atop Mt Enlightenment. Yes. Room up there, but sparsely populated."
Okay, I plead guilty. I should put more effort in finding an enlightened fiancée and get populating!
England is a place in which a hundred miles is a long way, and America is a place where a hundred years is a long time.
-- Neil Gaiman
this is absolutely nonsense. it doesn't click. maybe i should have inhaled like neil did. ha ha.
A peaceful chaotic could be someone who has had one cuppa coffee too many or someone afflicted with attention deficit disorder. There's a lotta both maladies goin' 'round.
David, please.
I thought we agreed not to talk about American politics until the 2008 election!
Post a Comment