PEOPLE NEED PEOPLE!

Teaching, as I do so often, Nazi Germany to at least two different year groups here at the Castle; I have been struck by Hitler’s use of community spirit. It is a yearly source of wonder and mystery to the lads; how this deranged and murderous oddball could possibly have inspired such widespread devotion. The assumption I have to pick away at is simply that they were coerced into doing so, whether by fear or violence. There is a presumption that if they didn’t wave flags, joyously salute and fight to the death for the Fuhrer, they’d be at once picked off by an SS sniper on the roof (or perhaps by the Gestapo agent under their bed).


Neither is true. Yes, it was wise to be seen playing ball lest you be reported by a zealous neighbour or your own Hitler Youth-attending spawn. But, as my Head of Department mentioned just this week – Hitler would have retained power with a vast approval rating had he held an election in 1938. It wasn’t everyone – of course not – but there’s every sign of him having been carried along on a wave of genuine public enthusiasm as the country’s fortunes and standards of living demonstrably improved (at least for those among the ‘Volk’) and the world began to fear them once more.

There are plenty of reasons for this – the nation’s history had seen them far more used to dictatorship and militarism than to the alternative, there was shame at the outcome of WW1 and fear at the experiences of the Great Depression, Hitler was even able to tap an already prevalent seam of anti-Semitism… However, perhaps above all (and I’m aware I say this without footnotes or credible backing) Hitler tapped a human need to belong. Throughout a German’s upbringing in the 1930s they would be told they were part of an exclusive club – racially and nationally. Evenings were filled with rallies, films, hikes, meetings… for children but also for adults in the world of work; kept happy with the like of ‘Beer and Sausage Evenings’ within the ‘Strength Through Joy’ programme. It was perhaps part of the appeal that others were not allowed to participate (Jews, gypsies, asocials, Communists, the mentally ‘defective’), thus serving to further affirm those on the inside, as well as giving them a common opponent and scapegoat. All school subjects and all public pronouncements made great use of the message that Germany and its people were special, chosen, destined for greatness – deserving of land and vengeance.

So what of it? Well I think this need exists still. People want to belong and they crave contact. There has been a horrible dismantling of organic bonds within society via the abandonment of church, unions, political parties or working men’s clubs. I’m not sure anything has truly replaced them – even football clubs have been taken, at the top level, beyond the reach of those who love them, leaving only the wealthy able to attend. Rather, social groupings happen online – where people compete for ‘friends’ they have often never met. This is unsatisfactory and demeaning of our humanity. Where for most of our history entertainment meant, by definition, a coming together of people, it is now fed through tubes into televisions and computer screens, devoured by isolated people cut off from each other by walls. I’m positive it’s partly responsible for the general mental health issues written about in the likes of ‘Affluenza’. It’s also dangerous. If someone in our age appears promising a community and acceptance within it on the basis of a crass and lowest-common denominator (Nick Griffin is a sort of rubbish dry run of the theory), it will surely seem hugely appealing to many.

There are positive instances of community still. Whatever you think of Christianity, hang around my church for a bit and you’ll see a bunch of people holding each other to high standards, looking out for one another and seeking to help out the wider community. I personally will never forget that whilst my wife was undergoing brain surgery, people were (without me asking) bringing round meals they’d cooked me, or taking my bike in to get the brakes fixed. I’m sure this mutual support is part of the reason why disconnected youngsters get sucked into the more fundamentalist forms of religion too, but it can be a very good thing – promoting charity, good parenting, moral behaviour. I’m not sure there are currently a great many alternative sources of such guidance; Harriet Harman threatening to arrest anyone who expresses a view suggesting ‘inequality’ doesn’t count! And it doesn’t have to be faith-based. I’ll never forget the glorious birth of AFC Wimbledon – a football club owned and formed by fans to replace the one bought by business sharks and literally taken from their community after 100-odd years in favour of Milton Keynes. It was clear that, with the early football at little more than parks standard in those early days, the thousands present craved above all a place to drink, sing and vent together – enjoying being a part of something that mattered to so many.

However, many seem to drift from communities once they leave school and university. Many in cities are lonely and thus susceptible to the politics of hate. It is to Britain’s credit that it never held much truck with extremes, whether Fascist or Communist. But, in troubled times, people still love a scapegoat and we need to give people a positive reason to belong. Social disconnection is prime fodder for the next budding Adolf!

NOTHING GOOD ON THE RADIO

Why can’t I listen to my music on the radio?

Right, nothing deep here – just a good old-fashioned moan at the bland and sanitising nature of commercial interests. Why can’t I listen to the music I like on the radio? It’s my frustration with the modern world in microcosm. For a little while, as a young whipper-snapper, I could listen to it on XFM. Then the sharks circled, XFM was purchased by Capital FM and, before I knew it, XFM seemed only to play The Stereophonics and the only DJ was Dave Berry. There was never anything new, or edgy, or truly alternative anymore. They were just feeding us a different aspect of the major labels’ officially sanctioned roster – the other half of the Top 20.

Then the good old BBC stepped in – the one organisation divorced from commercial considerations. They created 6Music – apparently designed for the likes of me. They kept it off the airwaves, ensuring low audiences by keeping things digital (does ANYONE have a digital car radio yet?) and advertising little. Then, when the pennies started pinching, they announced they were scrapping it – Mark Thompson citing the excuse of a serious overlap with the audience and output of commercial stations. This was ironic, given that there isn’t a single commercial station that plays a single song I identify with 6Music. Hence my point.

So what is my kind of music? It’s not that weird I promise! It’s just the usual music for a 31 year old who never stopped listening – who grew up on a combination of grunge, Britpop and Radiohead as a teenager and kept wanting thoughtful and interesting guitar music. If I listed the bands I listened to last week – Battles, Tunng, Local Natives (who I was lucky enough to see live on Tuesday), The National, Beach House, Grizzly Bear... well I’d sound obscure and pretentious to many. But that shouldn’t be so. They are not obscure or pretentious bands. Indeed the REASON you may not have heard of them is that none of the above are ever played on the radio (apart from by good old Zane Lowe perhaps on the otherwise infantile Radio 1)! There is no-one looking for exciting new music to push people’s dimensions. Because that would involve risk! No, rather the moneymen work out, via survey and focus group, exactly what people are listening to and then give them lots of it – and more ‘new’ artists that sound exactly the same again.

There is, of course, an upside to this: The internet. Things were perhaps ever thus on the airwaves, but  back in ‘the day’ of course people didn’t have Hype Machine... or Last FM... or ITunes... or a million other ways to explore, investigate and expand a budding musical horizon. We are, in reality, spoiled. But, in appreciating the fact, I don’t want to divorce myself from the lovely institution of radio, nor the guiding influence of a real human DJ.

In short, what am I saying? Please don’t scrap 6Music!

THE PROBLEM IS PEOPLE...

Before people remove me from their reader for lack of activity… Just thought I’d briefly summarise an assembly I bemused the kids with last week.


I was basically looking back at my formative experiences watching, on TV, the collapse of Communism and fall of the Berlin Wall – leading to the end of the Cold War. I referred to the fact that this was vividly depicted to an 11-yuear old as the Good having defeated the Bad, with a strong chance of ‘Happily Ever After’ to result. As Fukuyama (no I didn't say his name in assembly!) wrote, this was perhaps the End of History.

However, I then suggested that perhaps People were the Problem – rather than any geographical grouping or political construct. After all, the triumphal West was itself celebrating from within the confines of a pickle – Reagan/Thatcher’s recession having rendered 3 million unemployed in the UK alone, my father among them. And now we find ourselves looking back at an era in which the East has not notably flourished, nor the West covered itself in glory. Because the problem, perhaps, was the people – rather than the systems they operated within.

After all, Communism is a lovely idea. The idea that we work for mutual benefit – giving according to our means and getting according to our needs – is tempting. There is mileage in the concept of companies being run for good rather than for profit. The only problem being that we’re not wired that way! Deprived of the incentive of personal gain, and of the technological advances that come via competing corporations, Soviet farmers were eight times less productive than their American counterpart. Likewise the perpetually queuing proles, forever hoping to defect towards the materialistic West. Above all, virtually every Communist story, and those of the post-imperial new-born socialist African nations, gave headline billing to the power-drunk leaders who saw unlimited opportunity in such giddying state control and very quickly became ‘more equal than others’; reticent in the extreme to give up their superstar status for the good of anyone but themselves. And in saying that there is no pro-Western patronisation on my part: Our constitutional rights are shouted about by necessity – Blair didn’t want to let go or share… Brown couldn’t bear to hold that election just in case. Power is a drug and people aren’t selfless when they get it (this despite the fact they invariably begin their journey fuelled by ideals).

Which takes us to capitalism… the winning formula – the opportunity for all to achieve, to see reward for skills and hard work. The beauty of choice, propped up upon transparent liberal principles. How quickly it has taken us to environmental meltdown, global corporate monsters who devour the High Street, bankers who will literally gamble away your granny’s last penny, sex used to sell everything bar baby-food, exploitation of the Third World and a spiritual vacuum where few are happy with what they’ve got. Not because the ideas are fundamentally bad, but because the problem is the people. Prices are fixed, tax breaks are secured, loans come bearing brutalising conditions, politicians are paid off, lies are told (has anyone ever derived positive female attention by using Lynx deodorant?!), surpluses are dumped on Third World economies, further disabling local producers competing against the subsidised US/EU equivalent. After all, the Free Market would be great if it were free!

So is there any point going on? Shall we each retreat to our own rural Kibbutz? Well, for what it’s worth, I think Britain had it right for a while. The mixed economy of regulated Capitalism with unionised workers, its taxation funding a welfare state to pick up the unfortunate or unable… I think it seemed to do OK. But again, people were the problem. The unions ran wild and asked for too much in the 70s. Then Capitalism had its revenge and swept all aside on a tide of greed in the decade that followed. Now we have the worst of both – the over-mighty, paranoid Labour state sucking up to big business and relying entirely on wheeler-dealer finance to drive the country (after all, we don’t make anything anymore).

Why? Because the problem is the people. As I may have said already.

And yes I did attempt to communicate all this to a group of 14-16 year old boys within 9 minutes. And there was a pay-off. None of it will ever improve unless they, the next generation, realise they are not naturally good and work really very hard at being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Because whereas humanity en masse generally disappoints, individuals remain capable of doing great things…

PS I know proft isn't the ONLY effective incentive. The Soviet miracle under Stalin made good use of the fear incentive. Khrushchev got some purchase from patriotism as incentive (Space Race, Sport Race etc). China perhaps employ both.

PPS I seem to left-lean above. I don't really think that's representative of me any more. I have no beef with the rich if they are wise in that responsibility. I certainly don't trust the state any more than I trust them when it comes to spending that wealth...

JAN MOIR: THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG

Today saw the announcement that the Press Compaints Commission have ruled against the near 25,000 complaints received over Jan Moir’s infamous Daily Mail ‘Stephen Gately article’, finding nothing punishable in the piece. In it Moir had claimed, among other things, that ‘if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding (‘Gately’s) death are more than a little sleazy.’  (You can read the article here)

Now I’m not here to defend Jan Moir. Her article was ill-timed and showed a real ignorance of the case. Even so, to paraphrase Voltaire, I’d defend to the (metaphorical) death her right to write it. Gay-rights pressure group Stonewall are predictably upset with the decision. I’m sure they felt offended and slighted by the implications made in Moir’s piece. However, no-one has the right to not be offended. I’m not sure who said that, even after googling it... but the fact the search (in quote marks) returned over 5 pages of direct hits seems like some kind of validation!

Truth is there are too many sacred cows. This furore reveals two. Firstly, the gay community wants to be exempt from any disapproval or criticism. I don’t accept that, and I can’t abide the attempt to shut down debate or call disagreement ‘hatred’. It is reasonably out of bounds to contest that which someone is born with, be it the colour of skin or the tendency towards same-sex attraction. However, beyond that, to disagree with or question someone’s relationship or lifestyle choices is a given in a society marked by free speech – in doing so, one should expect a fiery response (just as if you query my choice of wife!), but let’s not automatically call it ‘hatred’ or make it illegal! It is as reasonable to tut at the promiscuity of a gay man as it is to do so at that of Katie Price or Ashley Cole. Furthermore, it’s legitimate to do as 67-year old Pauline Howe did, and write a letter to the council protesting about a loud and exhibitionist Gay Pride parade passing near her home. The council has the right to ignore her views and give them short shrift; but to have her arrested, as they did, for ‘hate crime’? It’s all a bit Orwellian. She is not any more a hate criminal than is Dawkins for loudly rubbishing Christianity; despite the fact that in doing so he’s made the life of Christians far less comfortable. Whoever’s on the receiving end, rejoice that a free country welcomes free debate...  

Secondly, there is the sanctification of dead celebrities. There is of course room for tact. We surely don’t want to badmouth the very recently dead. But, again, to illegalise the practise? The offence is one of foolishness or thoughtlessness – at journalistic and editorial level... but Stephen Gately is not legally beyond criticism because he has tragically passed on. Save us from sickening attempts to turn Jade Goody into a working class hero (her main ‘achievements’ propelling her into the public eye were, after all, feats of stupidity, stripping and racism) or Princess Diana into the world’s greatest mother (she died as she lived, indulging a jet-set lifestyle, accompanied by the latest boyfriend; her children firmly ensconced in boarding school). And let’s not become a society that goes running to the state crying foul if we feel upset by something we read. The state already feel far too justified in interfering with, well, everything! Let argument defeat argument, and let the debate be pursued through an ever-free press. I don’t want our national newspapers to mirror our national politics – a bland consensual landscape where to speak one’s mind without populist spin is to commit career suicide.

So, to conclude, well done the Press Complaints Commission and, to those who complained, cherish your offence and your right to express it!

TONY BLAIR - DISCUSS

NOTE: Comment moderation removed again as it was putting people off. But please don't drop the F-bomb... even when talking about Blair!!

There’s been a bit of argument on here lately about truth. A perfect time then to consider the case of Anthony Lyndon Blair, following his Chilcott appearances last week. For me it’s a heartfelt subject – I feel like the survivor of a love affair gone bad. I’d just turned 18 when Blair took power (having seen him speak impressively at a student conference the year before). In fact I enthusiastically took the role of Labour candidate that year in our school version of the General Election – a viciously fought affair in which over 1,000 voted (very few of them for me! I blame our location within a Tory heartland...). In doing so I enthusiastically endorsed the manifesto and the ‘third way’ that I felt represented my own outlook on political life. I was genuinely excited when the new First Family rolled into Downing Street and, as a new student, I entirely bought into the Cool Britannia phase when Noel Gallacher was hanging out at the seat of power. And then...


Not that New Labour has been a total failure. Schools and hospitals are better than they used to be. Driving around our neck of the woods it’s possible to lose count of the new-built glass-fronted schools we pass. Most of our local comprehensives seem to be attaining Excellent Ofsted reports and I know they’re not given out lightly! Those that are failing (my wife’s old school has sadly entered this bracket) are dealt with swiftly, effectively and, yes, brutally. I know, as a teacher, that the tactics of league tables, shotgun inspections and golden handshakes have alienated many (and SEN provision or playing fields would be whole different articles) – but most today leave today with a better all round education than they used to – and I will argue with anyone who disagrees.

But in the end Blair blew it. Even on foreign policy he was good for a while – he showed balls in Kosovo and played it right in Northern Ireland. Afghanistan may seem a mistake in hindsight, but few argued with the taking down of Bin Laden’s unashamed sponsors and apologists. However, in all this, it seemed he was becoming increasingly presidential – loving himself as the world statesman, contemptuous of Cabinet and in thrall to his perception across the Atlantic. And as for Iraq; I remember the sense of inevitability. The news reports may have been saying Hans Blix had found nothing, that war could be evaded, that we were waiting for a UN resolution. But we all knew the decision had been made and that redneck Bush was running the show – it was just a matter of when. Likewise we knew that, WMD or not, Saddam posed no more threat to us in the UK than does Mugabe or any other distant dictator.

And now, as we hear of Attorney General Goldsmith being bullied to change his mind on legality, of ‘evidence’ that few saw and even fewer felt compelled by... well what do we take from it all? First, I would again return to electoral reform. Blair felt untouchable, indeed was untouchable, due to his massive majority. Again, this was particularly dangerous when combined with the power of the party whips, to whom disobedience would have meant career suicide for any Labour MP. It laid bare our claims to democracy, as a war which featured nowhere in any manifesto put before the electorate was rushed through, desired by few in the country, the parliamentary party, the Civil Service or even the Cabinet. Blair told us to trust him and many did – largely because there was no real choice in the matter. And perhaps because we couldn’t quite believe things were as they seemed – that we really were ploughing in cack-handed on a personal grudge, with no idea of what would happen next (other than big oil contracts for lobbying US corporations). Secondly, we have to let the UN do its job. I know there’s danger in that – I will never forget reading Fergal Keane’s account of the Rwandan genocide and the moral failure of that body in letting it happen. But whilst, for all sorts of reasons, we can’t be the world’s policeman, we are part of a body equipped for that job. Our efforts should surely be spent on helping steer that ship when it comes to Iran or whoever’s next.

Part of me still wants to believe in Blair. I’m well aware I’m still not slating him to the extent he deserves. I want him to do well in the Middle East and to use the fact he’s highly regarded by many abroad. But, in the end, I and history will judge him responsible for those 100,000 Iraqi corpses; for cluster bombs, civil war and for misery that manages to at least match anything wrought by Saddam. And that I fear outweighs, well, anything else really…

BRITISHNESS PART 2

A follow-up to my earlier post on Britishness



Part One: You don’t know you’re born mate...


For what it's worth, I reckon Sebastian Shakespeare made a fool of himself in the Evening Standard last week. He had just returned from a two-week holiday in the Tamil Nadu region of India and had a very lovely time. All very well. However, upon his return, having suffered in Britain the horrors of a surly air hostess and a queue in Lloyd’s Bank, he states that ‘In my next life I would like to be born an Indian’. Well, fine for him. I'm sure millions are glad they were. But in doing so I imagine he’d like the continuing benefit of the money and privilege that one presumes have rather cushioned his own upbringing and indeed his recent travels. After all, up-an-coming as that country is, I suspect many lucky enough to be born Indian rather than accursed with Britishness may have to face subsequent difficulties even worse (gasp) than a slight delay on the High Street. But am I right? Or am I just another institutionally racist Brit taking Slumdog Millionaire a little too literally?


Well, the very same edition of the Evening Standard was on hand to help me out a few pages later. It told the story of the recently murdered Sukhwinder Singh, about whom the paper is somewhat conflicted – he was after all an illegal immigrant (very bad) but a martyred have-a-go hero (very good). Anyway, the piece features quotes such as the following: “Every year, 800 to 1,000 farmers in the Punjab commit suicide because they are unable to meet their debt repayments. For young men, the unemployment rate is well over 50% and even if they get a factory job (it) still leaves them on the poverty line. In London they know they can earn 20 times that’. Now I don’t write that to sound smug or glib. It just confirms to me the obscenity of a public schooled professional, living well in one of the world’s richest cities, claiming to envy the developing world. It brings to mind Helena Bonham-Carter’s famous claim that Kathy Burke had it easy being working-class. We really don’t have it that bad… don’t curse the hand that feeds you!

Part Two: Life without a Chance


Far more briefly... I know I may have sounded dismissive in my previous article when claiming that equal opportunities do exist in this country for those on council estates, as they’re sent to generally decent schools. I did so knowing there are a great number of other factors begging consideration. However, it was still an appropriate time to watch Fish Tank, the latest powerful and gritty Brit flick about a fifteen-year old anti-hero battling to get out of her brutal environment. Whilst watching, one phrase echoed through my head – ‘she never had a chance’. The tower block is bleak and vicious, the mother is a bitter, emotionally abusive tramp who views her as a threat, the latest father-figure views her only with lust. It’s a must-see for any who would unthinkingly demonise the ‘hoody’ hordes.


Yet, numerous as the issues are, I still don’t see the issue as primarily economic. Those Indian poor mentioned above could surely only marvel at a country which would hand them free housing, health care, education and enough money to ensure a big TV and fridge full of food. Yes, in the long term, more money would help – it gets you out of the tower block for a start… but in the short term? Money isn’t going to stop the substance abuse, put an end to the poor parenting, provide new role models or reverse the uninterested attitude to school. The Communist experiments in East Europe, China or anywhere else showed that economic equalisation does nothing to address the corruption inherent within humanity. So what’s the answer? Well there’s the tough bit…


NOTE: The ‘Warmth v Wealth’ debate regarding the development of children is very topical at present following a Cameron speech last month. See an overview here:

http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/against-parenting  

THIS IS MY TRUTH, TELL ME YOURS

The above was the name of a Manic Street Preachers album. It came to mind when JDS posted on the Comments Board (for the Lynch/Murakami post) the following statement:


‘And there is no truth. No right answer. No absolute understanding (at least in this world)’


I’ll accept the latter – there’s plenty we’ll never understand in this world (by way of example, why the continuing success of Vernon Kay?). But the rest of the quote? Well that I utterly refute. It calls to mind Nietzche’s quote: ‘there are no facts, only interpretations’. All very interesting and post-modern, but clearly nonsense, given that in saying it he presumably believes he’s stating a fact. Just as JDS is presumably stating a perceived truth when saying there is none.


The fact is, 1+1=2. The reality is; the apple is on the table. Applied to a faith position, the reality is; either the world has come into being of its own accord from a starting point of nothing, or it has been created by a being infinitely greater than ourselves. One or the other is true. One or the other is a fact. Either Mohammad was God’s prophet (NOTE: Have altered a mistake here - wanted to acknowledge the fact or else yunshui's comment below looks delusional...) or he wasn’t. More pressingly for a society that has often relegated him to the position of ‘a good teacher’, Jesus Christ, in identifying himself as God’s promised son, was either telling the truth, lying or a madman. Ambivalence is an illegitimate response.


In reality, stating all worldviews to be equally valid is to state them all equally false. After all, they sure as heck can’t all be equally true! Not when they are often making statements in direct opposition to one another. Upon death, we are not going to be herded into separate queues, to be greeted by Mohammad, Jesus, the Buddha, Krishna, Elvis... each according to our preference. Those who place them neatly side by side are, I suspect, those who in reality expect nothing but ‘The End’ upon expiration. If they’re right, that’ll be the truth. But an absence of truth? That’s surely just a fancy way of saying ‘I don’t know’!


JDS’s view is very much the cultural trend at present. An all-encompassing straddling of the fence chimes neatly with the new, oh-so sensitive societal gospel of tolerance and equality. It doesn’t like exclusive truth statements, equating them increasingly with intolerance or hatred. But have we really given up on finding any kind of firm resolution? Do we really think there’s nothing worth investing our hopes in? I want to look for truth and celebrate when I reckon I’ve found it. I then want to talk about it with openly others. And if they disagree with me? Well I’ll happily tolerate the fact. I most certainly won’t hate them. I’ll just continue to state my case, they’ll state theirs and we’ll call it debate. And, ultimately, someone will be right and someone wrong. That there’s the truth…