-->

Monday, March 11, 2013

Something Thoughtful


Nicholas Reid reflects in essay form on general matters and ideas related to literature, history, popular culture and the arts. You are free to agree or disagree with him.

DEPARTMENT OF “GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE”

This is one of those weeks where I prefer to let others speak, rather than wittering on myself.

I have an incredibly simple point to make. Sometimes different writers can express essentially the same idea, but in radically different ways.

Take the two poems below. They were both written in the second decade of the 20th century. They were both written by Oxbridge men (the South African Roy Campbell went to Oxford; Rupert Brooke to Cambridge). They are both “Georgian”, if you want to categorise, so their style is out of fashion. But they are both fun – Campbell’s because it whoops and yells, and Brooke’s because of its sustained irony.

And, yes, they both express essentially the same idea.

Now why should I insult you or spoil your fun by saying what that idea is? They’re not that hard to get.

I do note, however, that one idiot placed one of them on an “Atheists and Agnostics” website, apparently not seeing what both poets were really up to.

Anyway, enough of this. Read them, enjoy them, and see what you think.


The Theology of Bongwi, the Baboon
by
Roy Campbell
THIS is the wisdom of the ape 
Who yelps beneath the moon — 
'Tis God who made me in his shape; 
He is a great baboon. 
'Tis he who tilts the moon askew 
And fans the forest trees: 
The Heavens, which are broad and blue, 
Provide him his trapeze. 
He swings with tail divinely bent 
Around those azure bars, 
And munches, to his soul's content. 
The kernels of the stars. 
And when I die, his loving care 
Shall raise me from the sod, 
To learn the perfect Mischief there. 
The Nimbleness of God.


Heaven
by
Rupert Brooke

Fish (fly-replete, in depth of June,

Dawdling away their wat’ry noon)
Ponder deep wisdom, dark or clear,
Each secret fishy hope or fear.
Fish say, they have their Stream and Pond;
But is there anything Beyond? 
This life cannot be All, they swear,
For how unpleasant, if it were!
One may not doubt that, somehow, Good
Shall come of Water and of Mud;
And, sure, the reverent eye must see
A Purpose in Liquidity.
We darkly know, by Faith we cry,
The future is not Wholly Dry.
Mud unto mud! - Death eddies near - 
Not here the appointed End, not here!
But somewhere, beyond Space and Time,
Is wetter water, slimier slime!
And there (they trust) there swimmeth One
Who swam ere rivers were begun,
Immense, of fishy form and mind,
Squamous, omnipotent, and kind;
And under that Almighty Fin,
The littlest fish may enter in.
Oh! never fly conceals a hook,
Fish say, in the Eternal Brook,
But more than mundane weeds are there,
And mud, celestially fair;
Fat caterpillars drift around,
And Paradisal grubs are found;
Unfading moths, immortal flies,
And the worm that never dies.
And in that Heaven of all their wish,
There shall be no more land, say fish.

Monday, March 4, 2013

Something New


We feature each week Nicholas Reid's reviews and comments on new and recent books

“THE WORLD’S MOST DANGEROUS PLACE ” by James Fergusson (Bantam Press/ Random House $NZ39:99)

            Somalia, on the Horn of Africa, is in a state of chaos. It has an official government, the TFG (Transitional Federal Government) in Mogadishu. But out in the desert and scrub-lands, tribes rule and the notion of a functioning government is really a joke. Various Western interventions destabilised the region in the twentieth century. There followed the long-term dictatorship of Siad Barre (from 1969 to 1991). Then there was many-sided civil war, fed at least in part by Islamicist groups funded from other Muslim countries. In most of the land, real infrastructure is virtually non-existent.

Truth to tell, Somalia is only dubiously a state at all. When independence came from European powers a couple of generations ago, not all Somalis wanted to be part of the new state of Somalia. Though it has a Somali population, Djibouti chooses to remain firmly separate, as does the confusingly-named Somaliland. Real authority in Somalia itself is a congeries of tribes, warlords and youthful fanatics, with the central government having little power to overcome traditional tribal loyalties. Worse, the UN places it at the top of its list for government corruption. And over two million of its citizens have fled abroad, most of them to such Western nations as Britain and the United States.

            We are dealing, then, with something so chaotic that it is difficult to write a straightforward political or social commentary upon it.

But British journalist James Fergusson has imposed at least some sort of order upon his book The World’s Most Dangerous Place (subtitled Inside the Outlaw State of Somalia). Based on his journeys in Somalia in 2011, and his investigations of Somalis abroad in 2012, this is a very generous slice of journalism, running to nearly 400 pages (exclusive of its two sections of colour photographs). And like Caesar’s Gaul it is divided neatly into three parts.

            In the first part, Fergusson is with the soldiers of AMISCOM, the African Union Mission in Somalia, made up mainly of Ugandans and Burundians. He is an “embedded” journalist, observing what is officially a peacekeeping mission, but is unofficially a continual war against al-Shabaab. The literal translation of al-Shabaab is “The Youth”. This Islamicist movement is made up mainly of youthful recruits, and hence is very much the Somalian equivalent of the Taliban. Many Taliban and al-Qaida leaders have indeed fled to Somalia, made it their new base, and recruited hungry and gullible boys.

In these first seven chapters, Fergusson is mainly in the shattered remnants of Mogadishu.

            In the second part of the book, he moves out into the backblocks of Somalia – particularly the northern coastal regions, where piracy has once again become big business. Finally, in the third section, he is with the “diaspora” of Somalis living in London and Minneapolis.

Even in this orderly organization of material, much of what Fergusson tells me suggests chaos. There is, for example, this indication of violence as a routine feature of the everyday life of children:

“Mogadishu was a city where violence was so endemic that it had become the norm. The sleep of its citizens was no longer disturbed by the sound of shooting at night; small boys thought nothing of playing football in their street while a firefight raged up and down their neighbourhood. In 2011, according to the World Health Organization, nearly half of Somali victims of weapon-related injuries were children under the age of five. An entire generation of Somalis had grown up knowing that they could be violently killed, at random, at any time.” (Pgs.45-46)

Fergusson makes this remark while visiting a primitive hospital in the city, which treats both military and civilian casualties. Later he describes Mogadishu as “Lord of the Flies with automatic weapons” (Pg.72)

Perhaps even more shattering are his accounts of young girls (and we are talking nine- and ten-year-olds as well as teenagers) who are forced into “field marriages” by the young warriors of al-Shabaab and others. This means months of being treated as sexual utilities, raped and mutilated before being discarded. Again, in visiting a hospital, Fergusson sees wards of bruised and damaged young girls, some with the babies that their “field marriages” have produced.

In one thirty-page chapter, Fergusson gets to talk to deserters from al-Shabaab. He discovers that they are mainly foolish and uneducated teenagers. Some were so naïve that they were drawn into al-Shabaab by recruiters who showed them clips from Bollywood musicals and claimed they were documentary evidence of the virgins awaiting them in Paradise, should they sacrifice themselves for the Islamicist cause.

Here is how Fergusson describes their first encounter:

“One day, waiting at the base convoy point for another ride up to the front, I came across three recently captured al-Shabaab fighters, the oldest of whom was seventeen, the youngest fifteen. They were slumped along the wall of an administrative Portakabin awaiting transport to who knew where, their hands cuffed behind their backs, dirty and dejected, a look of shock in their eyes. They were volunteers, they said, who had put their hands up when an al-Shabaab recruiter came to their school. This had happened just fifteen days ago. They decided to surrender when they became separated from their unit and ran out of bullets. Why, I asked, had they put their hands up in the first place? The boys all looked at each other.
‘We were given a piece of fruit every day,” said one of them.” (pp.152-153).

This last sentence reminds us of another Somali reality. Famine has been a major recruiting agent for Islamicists. Like most famines in human history, the great Somali famine of June-July 2011 was not caused by the forces of nature, but by foolish human decisions. And al-Shabaab would not allow relief agencies to distribute food in the areas they controlled, as al-Shabaab knew that hungry people were more pliable.

Fergusson does mention the good intentions of the TFG and the international forces, which helped to set it up. But he has to note that attempts at stable government are always subverted by the need to maintain tribal balances in the allocating of government offices; and hence tribalism continues to be supported, promoted and embedded in the feeble state. He also notes that a disproportionate number of TFG ministers have been literate, but under-qualified, returning refugees who simply do not understand how a government should function.

When he moves out to the northern province of Puntland (on the actual “horn” of Africa), Fergusson meets at least one sophisticated official who suggests that maybe Sharia law, for all its inhumanities, wouldn’t be such a bad thing after all. At least it would give some predictable order to a county without this commodity.  Up in Puntland lives one third of Somalia’s population. And up in Puntland, the only sealed road is one that was built eighty years ago by Mussolini’s colonising Italians. The main legitimate income of this region comes from import duties. Real income derives from piracy, despite the smooth assurances Fergusson is given by a provincial official.

If I were to summarise all of the contents of this book, I would simply produce a catalogue of miseries. But alongside his (necessary and vivid) reportage, Fergusson has built something else into The World’s Most Dangerous Place. Two of the book’s most interesting features are the ongoing dialogue Fergusson conducts with other Western observers of Somalia; and his awareness of how much Western perceptions colour what is reported. I am interested to note how often he refers to the remarks of the nineteenth century explorer Richard Burton and mid-twentieth century novelist Gerard Hanley as perennially reliable guides to the Somali mentality.

Fergusson is unsparing in his analysis of the way Western influence has played its part in destroying this country. Somali tribal warfare in the nineteenth century became truly lethal only when it was armed with the best modern weapons. Clan feuds inflated to full-scale wars once the British and Italians left plenty of equipment and ammunition lying around in Somalia after the Second World War. The Siad Barre dictatorship relied extensively on US backing. The US saw it as a counter to the Soviet-backed dictatorship next door in Ethiopia. The dictatorship made Somalia even poorer than it had already been. The collapse of the dictatorship coincided with arrival of Jihadists. Fergusson compares the early 20th century Somali “Mad Mullah”, Muhammad Abdullah Hassan, fighting the British, to Osama bin Laden fighting Alliance forces. Similar mentalities are in play.

Fergusson also notes how much Western pop culture gives people an unreal image of the region. He refers a number of times to Ridley’s Scott’s film Black Hawk Down, based on the incident when American helicopters were forced down in Somalia and their crews massacred. In his opinion, the film sold the world foolish stereotypes. He gives an account of the media circus at the time of the Somali famine, with Hollywood actors forcing themselves into the limelight to show how concerned they were with humanitarian relief. Mind you, their limelight-hogging was pardonable compared with the posturing of Ghana’s Jerry Rawlings, who also visited Somalia during the famine, with camera crews in tow.

As Fergusson tells it, the US now is desperate not to be identified with AMISCOM’s war on al-Shabaab. For “the Great Satan” to be seen as backing these African peacekeepers would simply provide Islamicists with a propaganda weapon. Yet the author spends time at the fortified “Bancroft Hotel” in Mogadishu, which crawls with African and Western “advisors” and mercenaries, some CIA among them.

And there is also an awareness of the way Western pop culture influences the locals. Here is an early passage where Fergusson describes the Ugandans he met in AMISCOM:

            “Some of the men, in their aviator sunglasses and decorated helmets, looked so astonishingly like extras in a Vietnam war movie that I think they must consciously be emulating Hollywood. Yet there is no doubt what generation they belong to when one of them nods and grins and says in a near flawless American accent, ‘How ya doin’, man? Are you on Facebook? I’ll catch you later on Youtube.” (Pg.21)

And in the long chapter where Fergusson examines those Somalis now living in London (it is called “The Somali Youth Time-bomb”), he quotes this interesting fusion of black American rap and Jihadism, as chanted by some young London Somalis:

“For the cause
We kick down doors and break laws
We don’t care about police we live by Allah’s laws
For the cause I clap down niggaz that test me
I’m a Muslim. I can let nothing oppress me
For the cause I won’t stop till I reach my garden
I beg your pardon. I ride with bin Laden.” (quoted pg.273)

I do not believe Fergusson trivialises anything he reports, but he cannot help being aware of the irony of being a Western journalist in a land of war-torn, starving and intimidated people. In the Mogadishu sections of this book, he frequently expresses feelings of guilt about going back each evening to a comfortable, secured hotel, after another day of observing human misery. He does not leave us with despair. A final section of the book suggests that AMISCOM now has the upper hand over al-Shabaab. But his own delicacy of feeling is to his credit.

Something Old


Not everything worth reading is hot off the press. In this section, Nicholas Reid recommends "something old" that is still well worth reading. "Something old" can mean anything from a venerable and antique classic to a good book first published five or more years ago.

“THE MARCONI SCANDAL” by Frances Donaldson (first published 1962)
           
            How odd to read a book published fifty years ago about a scandal that took place one hundred years ago. As a reader, I am as many years away from the book as the book’s author was from the scandal. As a reader, I am also inclined to see the author’s values and attitudes as being almost as antique as those of the people about whom she was writing.

            The “Marconi Scandal”. For a brief time it was a sensational affair in the British press. Then it was quickly forgotten. It took place in 1912-13 and it went like this:

The British Liberal government, under its prime minister Herbert Asquith, had entered into negotiations with the Marconi company for a chain of Marconi wireless stations to be constructed throughout the British Empire for essential military communications. (This was years before anybody thought of radio as anything other that an official transmission system. Private radios for home entertainment were still years away.)

            While negotiations were going on, the Postmaster-General Herbert Samuel, the Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George and other members of the Liberal cabinet bought and speculated in shares in the American Marconi Company, being fairly certain that American Marconi shares would greatly increase in value once it became known publicly that the British Marconi Company had secured a valuable British government contract. One of those “other members of the cabinet” was the Attorney-General Sir Rufus Isaacs, who was advised in his investments by his brother Godfrey Isaacs, a financial speculator and one of the directors of the British Marconi Company.

            The British and American Marconi companies were quite separate entities, as later defenders of the ministers’ sharp dealings (including the author of this book) never tired of saying. And there is no suggestion that there was anything corrupt in the British government’s contract with British Marconi. Even so, this whole situation was clearly an example of what later generations would call “insider trading” – people using privileged knowledge to get an edge on the stock market and make an easy fortune.

            Rumours ran wild – especially as, in October 1912, Rufus Isaacs and other Liberal ministers denied, in a debate in the House of Commons, that they had made any speculations in Marconi at all. A Commission of Enquiry was set up, which deliberated and heard evidence in 1913. Its documents are extensively picked over by Frances Donaldson in this book. There was a second parliamentary debate in mid-1913. The government ministers were all cleared of charges of corruption, but it was clear that they had not made a full disclosure of their financial interests in the first parliamentary debate.

            In all this, the opposition Conservative party (under its leader Balfour) was incredibly restrained and asked no really pointed questions. However, on the hustings for some months the word “Marconi” became a hecklers’ catch-cry, implying government corruption, whenever a Liberal candidate appeared.

            Rumours first reached print in articles by Wilfred Ramage Lawson in a small-circulation journal “The Outlook”. Under cross-examination at the Commission of Enquiry, Lawson was forced to retract most of the statements he had made in print and to admit that they were pure guesswork. However, far more vociferous denunciations of the government ministers’ behaviour were written by Cecil Chesterton (brother of G.K.Chesterton) in Hilaire Belloc’s journal “The Eye Witness” (later called “The New Witness”). At first the prime minister Asquith advised his ministers to ignore these statements, as the journal in which they appeared had such a tiny circulation. However, when Cecil Chesterton’s and Wilfred Ramage Lawson’s accusations were reprinted in a major French newspaper “Le Matin”, Rufus Isaacs sued the French newspaper for libel and he then sued Cecil Chesterton.

Chesterton lost and was fined.

            And that seemed to be the end of the matter, although it left a nasty after-taste.

There was undeniably a minor strain of anti-semitism in the whole affair. Among the sharp dealers, Godfrey and Rufus Isaacs, and Herbert Samuel, were Jewish. Cecil Chesterton played this up in some of his articles. The Anglo-Frenchman Hilaire Belloc had briefly been a Liberal MP himself, but he had also been an anti-Dreyfusard in the much bigger controversy that had rocked France in the previous decade. When he appeared, as publisher of potentially libellous articles, before the Commission of Enquiry, Belloc specifically denied that he had any anti-Jewish motive, but the wording of his denial showed that he had an uneasy conscience about this. A few years later, Asquith promoted Rufus Isaacs to the role of Chief Justice of England. Coming after the “Marconi Scandal”, this led Rudyard Kipling to write his highly sarcastic satirical poem “Gehazi” (“a leper white as snow”) – far more anti-Jewish than anything Belloc had written. (Meanwhile, most extraordinarily, Godfrey Isaacs converted to Catholicism.)

There was another awkward sidelight on the affair. By the outbreak of the First World War, German “wireless telegraphy” (the Telefunken system) was much better organized than its British equivalent. So much so that, within hours of the outbreak of war in 1914, the Germans were able to signal to their entire merchant fleet to make for neutral ports. They thus saved most of their merchant marine from either capture or destruction. Technically, the British Marconi system was the equal of the German Telefunken system, but the proposed British construction of an empire-wide chain of radio stations had been retarded by all the squabbling over speculation in Marconi shares. To that extent, this shabby little scandal of insider trading had important consequences.

This far, I have given as full a summary as you need of the scandal as reported in this book.

But what of the book itself?

Frankly, I found it a tedious and rather questionable production. For the record, Frances Donaldson (1907-1994) was the daughter of a West End playwright (Frederick Lonsdale) and the wife of a minor aristocrat. She specialised in memoirs of people who moved in her own social circles and is best known for having written the first book to show (with reference to gossipy contemporary diaries) what a vacuous twit King Edward VIII, the one who abdicated, was.

But in The Marconi Scandal she resolutely refuses to admit that there was anything morally wrong in the insider trading that she chronicles. She holds the Liberal ministers guilty only of imprudence in not disclosing their financial affairs when they were asked in parliament. She also makes much of a rather cloudy argument, which holds that the scandal was only the result of MPs of similar background – on both the Liberal and Conservative sides of the House of Commons – being too nice about points of “honour” in one another’s affairs.

As a result of her obfuscations, I found myself liking Lawson and Cecil Chesterton a lot more than she obviously intended me to. I see Lawson and Chesterton as bona fide whistle-blowers who lacked finesse. These two journalists got some of their facts wrong, were certainly guilty of some libel, and may have been guilty of anti-semitism. But they were right to sense that there was something wrong in elected officials misusing privileged knowledge for private gain. And in the end, even if Frances Donaldson can’t see it, that is what the “Marconi Scandal” was all about. Sharp practice is still sharp practice, even if it is not on the scale of some of the world’s major financial and political scandals.

Incidentally, the insider-trading ministers’ investments made them very little money. Some of them even lost money by their dodgy speculations. This has sometimes been advanced in their defence. What does their misbehaviour matter when they didn’t even profit from it?

But doesn’t a crime remain a crime even when it doesn’t pay?

Something Thoughtful


Nicholas Reid reflects in essay form on general matters and ideas related to literature, history, popular culture and the arts. You are free to agree or disagree with him.

DE MORTUIS NIL NISI BONUM
Here is one of the most over-used phrases in the dictionary of quotations:

De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

Literally “Of the dead nothing unless good”.

How pithy the Latin language is when it comes to speaking truisms. What it means is “Say nothing disrespectful about the dead.”

And yet we constantly say disrespectful things about the dead. Where would the writing of history be without exposes of the foolish, immoral or cruel things that the dead have done? We should honour the good too, of course, unless we are complete cynics and reductionists. But we have a right to criticise the imperfect dead.

Perhaps we should limit the scope of the Latin aphorism.

Perhaps what it is really saying is “Say nothing disrespectful about the recently dead.”

When the corpse is still warm and the tears are still wet, it is unmannerly to say negative things about the person who had just died.

Who but a complete bounder would go up to the grieving widow and tell her that, actually, her late husband was a cheat, philanderer and thorough creep? Leave her with her illusions for a while. Let her grieve and get it out of her system; and let the newspaper editorialists and columnists pretend that the newly deceased was a great person, a benefactor of the world and somebody to be admired.

And then, when six or seven months have gone by, write the truth.

I do not write this in a vacuum. I write it from bitter experience.

A number of years ago, a pretty but rather simple-minded young woman died in a car crash in Paris. She was the Estranged Wife of the Future Head of the Church of England, who, as we now know, was at the time already bonking his mistress and who regarded his marriage as a mere formality to produce heirs. Estranged Wife had done her own bonking, which possibly produced one of her sons. This Pretty But Vacuous Young Woman had given a number of television interviews in which she said she aspired to be something called the Queen of Hearts. She was obviously of fairly limited intelligence, even if we could sympathise with her a little in having gone through the sham of a “fairy-tale wedding” to somebody whose thoughts were elsewhere.

Poor silly little thing.

Yet after her death, the media whipped up a frenzy of grief to which the more gullible members of society responded.

Okay. The British monarchy is a fairly questionable institution and it was reasonable for people to feel sympathy for somebody who seemed to have been victimised by it. But I was quite simply appalled at the tsunami of nonsense that was written and said about this sad, foolish and rather silly young woman. It is always to be mourned when somebody dies in a car crash; but it deeply offended me that this particular corpse was being honoured and wept over as a sainted individual.

So, in the first flush of Diana-mania, I wrote an article pointing out that a person of no particular achievement or goodness was being honoured irrationally. Sure, she supported some charities pro forma. Which under-employed royal doesn’t say how bad land-mines are etc? But what else was it that was being grieved? Merely the image that the media had created of a winsome pretty girl.

Boy, the abuse I received for my plain-speaking. How dare I write so heartlessly and disrespectfully? Didn’t I know that hundreds of thousands of people were in tears and that a veritable jungle of exotic flowers had been piled at the palace gates?

The lesson I learned was a simple one. Do not speak the truth about the dead too soon. Wait a while until the deceased is no longer on the front page. Then tell the truth.

So – speaking purely hypothetically, of course – I wonder what I would do if a media personality died, was given a fancy funeral at the Anglican cathedral, and had columns of slop written about him by old mates and colleagues?

Would I immediately jump in and point out that the media personality in question helped to set in motion the rot whereby television current affairs became “reality” television? Would I point out that the smug, simple-minded and foolish formulations of the media personality gained him popularity at the expense of accuracy? Would I note that the media personality appealed to the Lowest Common Denominator, often played to prejudices and had no real understanding of the important things in the news? Would I report that gradually his very appearance on television came to make me feel slightly sick?

No. I am a gentleman. In this purely hypothetical case I would say no such thing. I would wait until the tears of the nearest and dearest had stopped flowing, the slop had ceased to fill up the column inches, and the time was ripe to say it. Then I would tell the truth.

But until then, De mortuis nil nisi bonum. old chap.


De mortuis nil nisi bonum.