It's been 2 weeks. I haven't really got anything to say. I've been working 6 days a week, sleeping 1 day a week, and I'm now writing my thesis in any spare time in between these other priorities. I've not noticed any new comical quirks about the Finns, and having been buried in American foreign politics here at the library all evening I'm not very much inclined to write about that either.
However, here are my two rather uninteresting news items from the past couple of weeks.
M and I are planning to go to Bosnia for the new year, which effectively means that we'll plan it, be on the verge of buying tickets and then something will come up to scupper the plans. We'll then probably end up in a crappy bar in Helsinki drinking crappy beer while listening to crappy music and paying far too much money for the pleasure.
Cultural event of the week in Helsinki at the moment is "Love and Anarchy" a film festival which throws up some quite interesting movies and a good change from the usual Hollywood flags-and-tears and happy ending stuff that is normally shoved down our throats. I think the last time I went to the cinema was last year during this same festival, and yesterday I went to watch an Israel movie called "Lemon Tree", starring a bunch of actors with Hebrew names, none of which I can remember right now. It's quite impressive that someone has managed to make a full leangth feature movie about a plot of lemon trees, but there you go. They managed it. And if you can find it somewhere, it's worth watching.
Thank you, and see you next time.
Sep 22, 2008
Sep 8, 2008
Evil : An Analysis
If there's one word I've grown tired of hearing recently, it's the word "evil". Every story about US relations with countries which don't agree with its point of view on how the world should run will feature the word "evil" at some point. It seems to have recently replaced "terrorism" as the main word to be bandied around. I don't think it's the frequency of its use as such that gets to me, but rather the feeling I have of it being a word that's more suited to playgrounds in schools and sci-fi movies which is used cheaply to get into voters' minds to instil fear and therefore support for the "evil" designs of the Bush administration on the world in general. A sort of easy linguistic propaganda, if you will. The "Axis of Evil" speech, for instance, put the word into the public conscience and suddenly, Iran, Iraq and North Korea were metamorphosed from troublesome states into cackling bad guys from horror movies.
Bush's declaration of war on terrorism after September 11th included a passage pledging that America's "responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." A bold statement indeed. Whereas this may seem a noble quest to those who really wish to believe it, what does it actually mean ? The declaration of war against evil came after three days of floundering desperately for a target for American civil rage. No one knew who really did it, and a response was needed. In order to launch a response, an enemy was needed. This new enemy was evil. The problem with evil is that it is such a vague concept, but this problem seems to be part of the solution for the Bush administration. If he was to declare war against Osama bin Laden, he would have had to come up with an entirely new war to invade Iraq. If he wanted to declare war against Islamic fundamentalism, that would put him in a difficult situation relative to Cuba, for example. Evil is a fabulous catch-all concept which can be applied to just about anything.
Bush's stand on evil is that it is "real, and it must be opposed". His views on Osama bin Laden are few and decisive - "The only thing I know certain about him is that he's evil. And I don't know what to believe about him, except that he wants to hurt Americans." Very clear. This would suggest that the definition of evil is wanting to hurt Americans. Unless such a line is some kind of political marketing gimmick. Besides, doesn't the death penalty, which Bush heartily endorsed as governor of Texas, hurt Americans ? Moreover, "I think there is one universal law, and that's terrorism is evil, and all of us must work to reject evil. Murder is evil, and we must reject murder." A more general assessment - killing people is evil. Once again, the millions killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were only "collateral damage" and therefore the acts in themselves were not evil. But wait - there's an explanation ! "None of us would ever wish the evil that has been done to our country, yet we have learned that out of evil can come great good." Aha. There's the explanation then.
"We don't share the point of view that evil is religious. We don't appreciate the fact that somebody has tried to hijack a religion in order to justify terror activities." It's great isn't it ? This is the same man who, not long after, claimed that "'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." Terror is of course, much like evil, defined by the speaker. The majority of Iraqis may have been living in terror for several years but, well, it would appear that that's rather irrelevant. "The evil one who hides [Osama himself] thinks in ways that we can't possibly think in America -- so destructive, such a low regard for human life". I could go on and on.
But onto other things. The Republican running for senator in Illinois in 2004, Alan Keyes considered that terrorism and abortion were the "same evil". So we're now fighting a war against abortion as well ?
One thing that I've found vaguely amusing is that both of the Presidential candidates have been asked for their definitions of evil. Obama gave a general response including Darfur, American city streets, abusive parents, the fact that the act of confronting evil sometimes entails evil in itself, which could have been an oblique reference to the Iraq fiasco, once again. McCain gave a bold, Bushesque answer - Radical Islam, terrorists in Iraq, al-Qaeda, bin Laden (who McCain will apparently "follow to the gates of hell" in order to bring him to justice). Whereas Bush would probably agree with McCain's analysis, Obama's is probably closer to what Bush would himself want to say - a vague, indefinable concept which leaves the moral door open for attack just about anyone or anything.
But please Mr. Bush, for my sanity, can we just drop the word "evil" and actually point out what we're aiming at here ? It would make life a lot easier for the both of us. Thanks.
Bush's declaration of war on terrorism after September 11th included a passage pledging that America's "responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." A bold statement indeed. Whereas this may seem a noble quest to those who really wish to believe it, what does it actually mean ? The declaration of war against evil came after three days of floundering desperately for a target for American civil rage. No one knew who really did it, and a response was needed. In order to launch a response, an enemy was needed. This new enemy was evil. The problem with evil is that it is such a vague concept, but this problem seems to be part of the solution for the Bush administration. If he was to declare war against Osama bin Laden, he would have had to come up with an entirely new war to invade Iraq. If he wanted to declare war against Islamic fundamentalism, that would put him in a difficult situation relative to Cuba, for example. Evil is a fabulous catch-all concept which can be applied to just about anything.
Bush's stand on evil is that it is "real, and it must be opposed". His views on Osama bin Laden are few and decisive - "The only thing I know certain about him is that he's evil. And I don't know what to believe about him, except that he wants to hurt Americans." Very clear. This would suggest that the definition of evil is wanting to hurt Americans. Unless such a line is some kind of political marketing gimmick. Besides, doesn't the death penalty, which Bush heartily endorsed as governor of Texas, hurt Americans ? Moreover, "I think there is one universal law, and that's terrorism is evil, and all of us must work to reject evil. Murder is evil, and we must reject murder." A more general assessment - killing people is evil. Once again, the millions killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were only "collateral damage" and therefore the acts in themselves were not evil. But wait - there's an explanation ! "None of us would ever wish the evil that has been done to our country, yet we have learned that out of evil can come great good." Aha. There's the explanation then.
"We don't share the point of view that evil is religious. We don't appreciate the fact that somebody has tried to hijack a religion in order to justify terror activities." It's great isn't it ? This is the same man who, not long after, claimed that "'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." Terror is of course, much like evil, defined by the speaker. The majority of Iraqis may have been living in terror for several years but, well, it would appear that that's rather irrelevant. "The evil one who hides [Osama himself] thinks in ways that we can't possibly think in America -- so destructive, such a low regard for human life". I could go on and on.
But onto other things. The Republican running for senator in Illinois in 2004, Alan Keyes considered that terrorism and abortion were the "same evil". So we're now fighting a war against abortion as well ?
One thing that I've found vaguely amusing is that both of the Presidential candidates have been asked for their definitions of evil. Obama gave a general response including Darfur, American city streets, abusive parents, the fact that the act of confronting evil sometimes entails evil in itself, which could have been an oblique reference to the Iraq fiasco, once again. McCain gave a bold, Bushesque answer - Radical Islam, terrorists in Iraq, al-Qaeda, bin Laden (who McCain will apparently "follow to the gates of hell" in order to bring him to justice). Whereas Bush would probably agree with McCain's analysis, Obama's is probably closer to what Bush would himself want to say - a vague, indefinable concept which leaves the moral door open for attack just about anyone or anything.
But please Mr. Bush, for my sanity, can we just drop the word "evil" and actually point out what we're aiming at here ? It would make life a lot easier for the both of us. Thanks.
Life IS Hard
On Friday, something interesting happened in Helsinki ! Around Töölönlahti, one of many lakes dotted around the city (which is not much of a city at all outside the centre, more of a collection of suburbs dotted around with forests, parks and lakes, which would be very pleasant if the architecture wasn't so reminiscent of the Soviet era) a massive crowd gathered for the all-Finland firework display contest. In it, five teams competed to launch massive amounts of money into the air in a show of noise and light that was impressive to even the most cynical viewer. London's firework display to announce the arrival of 2008, for instance, cost £1,3million. That half hour of light and noise in one city (and it can be safely assumed that the major cities of most of the world's countries have at least 2 large-scale displays a year - for new year and for the national day) cost the same as a year of anti-retroviral drugs for over 6000 people. Multiply this by the amount of countries in the world and the amount of cities in those countries which would have fireworks displays and you start to get an idea of how much money is fired into the air which could be put to slightly better use - third world debt relief, AIDS and malaria treatment and so on. It's unfair to pin the blame squarely on fireworks though, and the profligacy of authorities the world over can be pointed at. But I digress.
As in most cases of something happening in this city, the majority of the city swooped on the park, vodka and beer bottles in hands. Those looking upwards could see fireworks, and those looking in any other direction could see kids getting drunk not actually looking at the fireworks. I remember being drunk in my final years of school during fireworks displays and even though I was slightly underage by a year or two like these wasters, I didn't turn my eyes away from the pyrotechnics. This is when, aged 25, I lament the youth of today and how they don't appreciate anything. Actually this may have something to do with (and prepare yourself for another psychoanalysis of the Finnish population here) the state of things I came to realise quite early here.
Alcohol abuse by kids around here is explained away by M as a reflection that it's "difficult growing up in Finland". I've never grown up here so I can't really comment from an objective point of view. It does seem like quite a bold statement though. On first view, the Finns are a tough, resilient bunch - they live in a country whose climate is fairly harsh, to say the least, have come through 40 years of forced friendship with the Soviet Union and a large economic depression in the 1990s. They are, on the whole, people who like to live at one with nature. The majority can sort themselves out very well in terms of survival skills out in the elements and all men above the age of 18 go on between 6 and 12 months of what seems to be a quite rigorous stint of military service. However, for some reason, the national sport here is complaining about absolutely everything that doesn't work perfectly. Something that the average resident of a relatively dysfunctional country like Belgium would shrug off with an "ah well, shit happens" is treated as a large (and possibly distressing) inconvenience here. It is a country where social security throws money at absolutely everyone. I get 480€ a month of absolutely free money just for being a student here - kids start getting this in high school and just about anyone is eligible for free money of some sort - including the large population of alcoholics and those who just can't be bothered to work (one man I shared a hospital room with claimed to have not done any work for 15 years because he didn't like working - he had been supported by the state every step of the way. They were also paying entirely for his operation whereas I had to shell out for mine). I have never been perplexed at peoples' distress as much as I have here where people have a tendency to have a total nervous breakdown over something very trivial. Consequently, I'd hazard a guess that if kids growing up in this situation don't have entertainment and money right on their doorsteps, they'll just go and drink and smoke with other kids. Where they get the money to buy cider and cigarettes, I would imagine, is quite obvious. Life is hard indeed - I'm sure the children of Angola and Afghanistan are thanking their lucky stars that they were born in their respective social paradises !
This situation of excessive teenage angst leads to a bifurcation of the population of Helsinki, for example - half of it will hit the bottle, live on the number 6 and 8 trams and get battered every day on cheap vodka, berating passers-by and falling asleep in bus stops by mid-morning. Others will kick the habit, get jobs, and complain about how things don't run quite as well as they should. Before I moved over here, my ex described Finland as a country where "when a bus is 2 minutes late, the president hears about it". I laughed at the notion then but I'm getting more and more convinced of the reality of it.
As in most cases of something happening in this city, the majority of the city swooped on the park, vodka and beer bottles in hands. Those looking upwards could see fireworks, and those looking in any other direction could see kids getting drunk not actually looking at the fireworks. I remember being drunk in my final years of school during fireworks displays and even though I was slightly underage by a year or two like these wasters, I didn't turn my eyes away from the pyrotechnics. This is when, aged 25, I lament the youth of today and how they don't appreciate anything. Actually this may have something to do with (and prepare yourself for another psychoanalysis of the Finnish population here) the state of things I came to realise quite early here.
Alcohol abuse by kids around here is explained away by M as a reflection that it's "difficult growing up in Finland". I've never grown up here so I can't really comment from an objective point of view. It does seem like quite a bold statement though. On first view, the Finns are a tough, resilient bunch - they live in a country whose climate is fairly harsh, to say the least, have come through 40 years of forced friendship with the Soviet Union and a large economic depression in the 1990s. They are, on the whole, people who like to live at one with nature. The majority can sort themselves out very well in terms of survival skills out in the elements and all men above the age of 18 go on between 6 and 12 months of what seems to be a quite rigorous stint of military service. However, for some reason, the national sport here is complaining about absolutely everything that doesn't work perfectly. Something that the average resident of a relatively dysfunctional country like Belgium would shrug off with an "ah well, shit happens" is treated as a large (and possibly distressing) inconvenience here. It is a country where social security throws money at absolutely everyone. I get 480€ a month of absolutely free money just for being a student here - kids start getting this in high school and just about anyone is eligible for free money of some sort - including the large population of alcoholics and those who just can't be bothered to work (one man I shared a hospital room with claimed to have not done any work for 15 years because he didn't like working - he had been supported by the state every step of the way. They were also paying entirely for his operation whereas I had to shell out for mine). I have never been perplexed at peoples' distress as much as I have here where people have a tendency to have a total nervous breakdown over something very trivial. Consequently, I'd hazard a guess that if kids growing up in this situation don't have entertainment and money right on their doorsteps, they'll just go and drink and smoke with other kids. Where they get the money to buy cider and cigarettes, I would imagine, is quite obvious. Life is hard indeed - I'm sure the children of Angola and Afghanistan are thanking their lucky stars that they were born in their respective social paradises !
This situation of excessive teenage angst leads to a bifurcation of the population of Helsinki, for example - half of it will hit the bottle, live on the number 6 and 8 trams and get battered every day on cheap vodka, berating passers-by and falling asleep in bus stops by mid-morning. Others will kick the habit, get jobs, and complain about how things don't run quite as well as they should. Before I moved over here, my ex described Finland as a country where "when a bus is 2 minutes late, the president hears about it". I laughed at the notion then but I'm getting more and more convinced of the reality of it.
Aug 27, 2008
How To Halve Your I.Q. In 1 Hour
This afternoon I wrote about George Bush Jr., meaning that my blogging today couldn't sink to a lower level of intellect, right ?
WRONG !!!!
As I was eating my rice and various other things tonight, the Finnish version of Big Brother started on TV. I don't think there is anything in popular culture (including R 'n B music and even celebrity gossip magazines) that makes my jaw drop at the sheer idiocy and pointlessness of it all. I think the difference between Big Brother and the celebrity gossip magazines (because after all, they are both forms of escape from normal life to live someone else's life vicariously for people with no imagination to do anything else) is that, while people will religiously buy their gossip magazines every month and read them from cover to cover, that's all they do. It's quite sad, granted, but there's a limit to it. I have found the following interesting facts on the readership of Hello! magazine which, I would imagine, is typically representative of this type of magazine.
Hello! readers are 71% more likely than the average female to choose a car mainly on looks.
Only 4% of Hello! readers buy tomatoes, as of February 2003.
Hello! readers are also 64% more likely to vote for an electoral candidate based on his or her hairstyle rather than policies
I've found them unreferenced on Wikipedia and as such I'm not sure if these facts are actually true or not, but it's quite funny anyway and I'd say it's quite representative even if it is satyrical. There's a song by French singer Jean-Jacques Goldman which describes the desperation of the life of a woman who lives her life through the celebrities in these magazines.
Big Brother, however, is a different affair entirely. It is the ultimate in mental escapism yet, unlike watching travel programmes or documentaries, offers absolutely no interest of any sort, as far as I can see. Psychology PhD students aside, who seriously takes anything useful from Big Brother ? And what's more, it's not one nation's stupidity - from its inception in Holland in 1999, it has spread to nearly 70 countries (that's seventy countries where people sit on their sofas, watching other people sitting on sofas) as diverse as Montenegro (where it's called Veliki Brat), the Philippines (Pinoy Big Brother), Nigeria, Somalia and the Middle East (where it's known as Al-Rais), Albania and Colombia (where, predictably, it's called Gran Hermano). Not content with watching the "most interesting" parts on TV, some (and I know someone who does this) even pay money to access the cameras 24/7 via the internet !! It's quite amazing to my mind that people should pay money to sit on the internet at 2am in order to watch people they don't know sleeping. There are many things I don't like or I can see are brainless - hard rock, teen movies, Greek party islands - which I would never enjoy myself, but can see in a way how other people enjoy it. Watching Big Brother's 24/7 camera is something I just cannot understand.
From what I saw of the Finnish episode it's similar to shows I've had the misfortune of allowing my eyes to see in other countries - people sit around discussing brainless topics before doing some idiotic task, occasionally having a nervous breakdown and occasionally having sex (probably on the orders of the networks after even the most die hard airhead fan is considering switching off). At the end of this, someone wins a large amount of money and becomes an instant celebrity for having done precisely nothing of use.
Now, "people are stupid" is a line that I do like to repeat from time to time and (even though it's a massive generalisation) I do feel that there is some kind of pattern - the human population as a whole (or rather the "developed" Western population, living in places where life is so outstandingly boring that we sink to immense depths to "entertain" ourselves) comprises largely of sheep who follow trends and fashions for no other reason than "others are doing it". This leads me to one of the small problems I've been thinking about for a while. Namely the following :
Why is it that I, as someone who reads the news every morning, can access information on Jane Goody's personal life far more easily than I can on the war in Darfur, the development of cures against AIDS or the looming environmental threats which are poised to start destroying us all ?
Two facts are obvious to anyone who reads the news on any regular website - people read more about irrelevant celebrities' lives than they do about the battle against AIDS, and there are more frequent stories about irrelevant celebrities' lives than there are about the battle against AIDS. One of these two facts has engendered the other, although I'm not sure which. In either case, it's quite sad that life has reduced people to this. As I write this another reality show has just begun and I've realised that if I write everything I feel about the overly-emotional made-for-TV-spectacle tear-jerking reality shows I would probably overload the blogger.com servers. So with this in mind, it's probably about time to stop. I'm off to read a book.
WRONG !!!!
As I was eating my rice and various other things tonight, the Finnish version of Big Brother started on TV. I don't think there is anything in popular culture (including R 'n B music and even celebrity gossip magazines) that makes my jaw drop at the sheer idiocy and pointlessness of it all. I think the difference between Big Brother and the celebrity gossip magazines (because after all, they are both forms of escape from normal life to live someone else's life vicariously for people with no imagination to do anything else) is that, while people will religiously buy their gossip magazines every month and read them from cover to cover, that's all they do. It's quite sad, granted, but there's a limit to it. I have found the following interesting facts on the readership of Hello! magazine which, I would imagine, is typically representative of this type of magazine.
Hello! readers are 71% more likely than the average female to choose a car mainly on looks.
Only 4% of Hello! readers buy tomatoes, as of February 2003.
Hello! readers are also 64% more likely to vote for an electoral candidate based on his or her hairstyle rather than policies
I've found them unreferenced on Wikipedia and as such I'm not sure if these facts are actually true or not, but it's quite funny anyway and I'd say it's quite representative even if it is satyrical. There's a song by French singer Jean-Jacques Goldman which describes the desperation of the life of a woman who lives her life through the celebrities in these magazines.
Big Brother, however, is a different affair entirely. It is the ultimate in mental escapism yet, unlike watching travel programmes or documentaries, offers absolutely no interest of any sort, as far as I can see. Psychology PhD students aside, who seriously takes anything useful from Big Brother ? And what's more, it's not one nation's stupidity - from its inception in Holland in 1999, it has spread to nearly 70 countries (that's seventy countries where people sit on their sofas, watching other people sitting on sofas) as diverse as Montenegro (where it's called Veliki Brat), the Philippines (Pinoy Big Brother), Nigeria, Somalia and the Middle East (where it's known as Al-Rais), Albania and Colombia (where, predictably, it's called Gran Hermano). Not content with watching the "most interesting" parts on TV, some (and I know someone who does this) even pay money to access the cameras 24/7 via the internet !! It's quite amazing to my mind that people should pay money to sit on the internet at 2am in order to watch people they don't know sleeping. There are many things I don't like or I can see are brainless - hard rock, teen movies, Greek party islands - which I would never enjoy myself, but can see in a way how other people enjoy it. Watching Big Brother's 24/7 camera is something I just cannot understand.
From what I saw of the Finnish episode it's similar to shows I've had the misfortune of allowing my eyes to see in other countries - people sit around discussing brainless topics before doing some idiotic task, occasionally having a nervous breakdown and occasionally having sex (probably on the orders of the networks after even the most die hard airhead fan is considering switching off). At the end of this, someone wins a large amount of money and becomes an instant celebrity for having done precisely nothing of use.
Now, "people are stupid" is a line that I do like to repeat from time to time and (even though it's a massive generalisation) I do feel that there is some kind of pattern - the human population as a whole (or rather the "developed" Western population, living in places where life is so outstandingly boring that we sink to immense depths to "entertain" ourselves) comprises largely of sheep who follow trends and fashions for no other reason than "others are doing it". This leads me to one of the small problems I've been thinking about for a while. Namely the following :
Why is it that I, as someone who reads the news every morning, can access information on Jane Goody's personal life far more easily than I can on the war in Darfur, the development of cures against AIDS or the looming environmental threats which are poised to start destroying us all ?
Two facts are obvious to anyone who reads the news on any regular website - people read more about irrelevant celebrities' lives than they do about the battle against AIDS, and there are more frequent stories about irrelevant celebrities' lives than there are about the battle against AIDS. One of these two facts has engendered the other, although I'm not sure which. In either case, it's quite sad that life has reduced people to this. As I write this another reality show has just begun and I've realised that if I write everything I feel about the overly-emotional made-for-TV-spectacle tear-jerking reality shows I would probably overload the blogger.com servers. So with this in mind, it's probably about time to stop. I'm off to read a book.
"Iraq fair game, Georgia certainly not", say politicians
As a student of Political Science, I often get comments such as "ah, politicians are all rotten anyway" or "it's just a big pile of corruption" and "I don't trust politics". People then look at me expecting me to defend myself. Often, I disappoint them by pointing out that politicians are even more rotten than they think.
A lot has been made of Russia's invasion of Georgia recently. For some it's shocking. For some it's a scary return to the days of the Cold War. For me, it's quite funny - a stage where "the West" can once again show how wonderfully hypocritical it is with some quite brilliant soundbites. Firstly, presidential hopefully John McCain showed that he has the credentials to become a great leader of the free world in following in Bush II's footsteps by claiming something ridiculous.
George Bush II, always keep to make his mark on international events, pointed out that "Russia has sought to integrate into the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century. Now Russia is putting its aspirations at risk by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with the principles of those institutions." The fact that the majority of Ossetians are Russian citizens and were being targeted by the Georgian army seems to be rather irrelevant here - the US was protecting American civilians by attacking Iraq, which was incidentally barely able to threaten its neighbours. Just because a bunch of people with Russian passports were being charged on by the Georgian army doesn't mean Russia was actually acting legitimately defending them. Far from it, apparently - this kind of thing is just not allowed !
"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations !" claimed John McCain to back up this accusation. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find out whether Iraq and Afghanistan were considered nations by the US or not, but in any case this seems to be a rather bizarre claim to make. A suggestion that Russia be barred from the G8 while its army is still in Georgia was also floated. Interestingly, McCain has stated that if he becomes president, he will aim for American troops to remain in Iraq until 2013.
Condoleezza Rice, not wanting to miss out on the action, came up with this little pearl : "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten its neighbours, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed !". Indeed, this is 2008 - it is not 2001 or 2003 either. Admittedly, the US did not invade neighbours, occupy their capitals, overthrow their governments and get away with it in 2001 and 2003 - it did actually make the effort to get the troops out to Asia in order to do all of these things. Which, I suppose, makes it acceptable.
Eventually, someone stopped playing the game. Zalmay Khalilzad, US ambassador to various places in recent times, decided to say "hey ! we're not being hypocritical, we're just being selective in who people are allowed to invade !". "The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe -- those days are gone !" he said, skillfully avoiding the Iraqi/Afghan question. Unfortunately, in a slight oversight, he forgot to mention McCain and Rice's specific comments on timing, and therefore the US-led NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 would fall foul of this statement. If I was being really pedantic, I could say that, Georgia lying south of the main peaks of the Caucasus, it's technically in Asia itself. But I digress.
In addition to its military action in Georgia, Russia has done something even more disgusting - it has recognised the independence of South Ossetia AND Abkhazia !
The US has positioned itself as a champion of international law and in this arena the UN Charter gives the organisation's purpose as one "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples". Self determination of peoples would mean that Ossetians would get their own state, as would the Abkhaz, both of which speak their own language and have their own cultures and customs. Russian intention to recognise two regions that have been in conflict but are clearly within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia... is regrettable" claims Condoleezza Rice.
Where the Americans tread, of course, the British will surely follow. Foreign Secretary David Milliband claimed that the crisis provided a "rude awakening" and that Russia's "unilateral attempt to redraw the map marks a moment of real significance". Also, "We fully support Georgia's independence and territorial integrity, which cannot be changed by decree from Moscow." Would this be the same Britain and America who dismantled Serbia and pushed Kosovo into independence on the basis of national self-determination ? What a strange world this is.
DISCLAIMER : I would also like to explain this before anyone thinks "Oh here we go, someone who wants to slate Britain and the US for everything". I don't see any particularly easy solution for this situation, nor do I think Russia's aggression can be condoned. Nor do I think that the US and Britain are the only ones involved in blowing the trumpet of Western double-edged morality either - many others have recognised Kosovo which was declared as an independent state completely against international law and are jumping onto the anti-Russian bandwagon as well. I'm just presenting a certain side of things which crop up again and again in any crisis situation relevant to the West across the globe.
A lot has been made of Russia's invasion of Georgia recently. For some it's shocking. For some it's a scary return to the days of the Cold War. For me, it's quite funny - a stage where "the West" can once again show how wonderfully hypocritical it is with some quite brilliant soundbites. Firstly, presidential hopefully John McCain showed that he has the credentials to become a great leader of the free world in following in Bush II's footsteps by claiming something ridiculous.
George Bush II, always keep to make his mark on international events, pointed out that "Russia has sought to integrate into the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century. Now Russia is putting its aspirations at risk by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with the principles of those institutions." The fact that the majority of Ossetians are Russian citizens and were being targeted by the Georgian army seems to be rather irrelevant here - the US was protecting American civilians by attacking Iraq, which was incidentally barely able to threaten its neighbours. Just because a bunch of people with Russian passports were being charged on by the Georgian army doesn't mean Russia was actually acting legitimately defending them. Far from it, apparently - this kind of thing is just not allowed !
"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations !" claimed John McCain to back up this accusation. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find out whether Iraq and Afghanistan were considered nations by the US or not, but in any case this seems to be a rather bizarre claim to make. A suggestion that Russia be barred from the G8 while its army is still in Georgia was also floated. Interestingly, McCain has stated that if he becomes president, he will aim for American troops to remain in Iraq until 2013.
Condoleezza Rice, not wanting to miss out on the action, came up with this little pearl : "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten its neighbours, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed !". Indeed, this is 2008 - it is not 2001 or 2003 either. Admittedly, the US did not invade neighbours, occupy their capitals, overthrow their governments and get away with it in 2001 and 2003 - it did actually make the effort to get the troops out to Asia in order to do all of these things. Which, I suppose, makes it acceptable.
Eventually, someone stopped playing the game. Zalmay Khalilzad, US ambassador to various places in recent times, decided to say "hey ! we're not being hypocritical, we're just being selective in who people are allowed to invade !". "The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe -- those days are gone !" he said, skillfully avoiding the Iraqi/Afghan question. Unfortunately, in a slight oversight, he forgot to mention McCain and Rice's specific comments on timing, and therefore the US-led NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 would fall foul of this statement. If I was being really pedantic, I could say that, Georgia lying south of the main peaks of the Caucasus, it's technically in Asia itself. But I digress.
In addition to its military action in Georgia, Russia has done something even more disgusting - it has recognised the independence of South Ossetia AND Abkhazia !
The US has positioned itself as a champion of international law and in this arena the UN Charter gives the organisation's purpose as one "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples". Self determination of peoples would mean that Ossetians would get their own state, as would the Abkhaz, both of which speak their own language and have their own cultures and customs. Russian intention to recognise two regions that have been in conflict but are clearly within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia... is regrettable" claims Condoleezza Rice.
Where the Americans tread, of course, the British will surely follow. Foreign Secretary David Milliband claimed that the crisis provided a "rude awakening" and that Russia's "unilateral attempt to redraw the map marks a moment of real significance". Also, "We fully support Georgia's independence and territorial integrity, which cannot be changed by decree from Moscow." Would this be the same Britain and America who dismantled Serbia and pushed Kosovo into independence on the basis of national self-determination ? What a strange world this is.
DISCLAIMER : I would also like to explain this before anyone thinks "Oh here we go, someone who wants to slate Britain and the US for everything". I don't see any particularly easy solution for this situation, nor do I think Russia's aggression can be condoned. Nor do I think that the US and Britain are the only ones involved in blowing the trumpet of Western double-edged morality either - many others have recognised Kosovo which was declared as an independent state completely against international law and are jumping onto the anti-Russian bandwagon as well. I'm just presenting a certain side of things which crop up again and again in any crisis situation relevant to the West across the globe.
Aug 8, 2008
Can we leave the Chinese alone for a bit ?
Seriously - they've organised the Olympics, they're putting a show on for the rest of the world. Politics is politics, sport is sport. If we didn't give the task of organising big games to countries without a poor human rights record, the Olympics, World Cup and European championships of just about everything would simply alternate between Finland and Sweden, the two most innocent and incorruptible nations in the world. We've all got blood on our hands, let's face it. So what's the big deal with the Chinese ? Why is everyone saying we should boycott watching the games ? Why were heads of state threatening to not go to Beijing ? I've heard it's because China is currently illegally occupying Tibet. I've heard that athletes themselves are signing petitions ordering the Chinese to move out of Tibet, give it an independent state and to behave themselves properly with regard to human rights. I've heard they also want the Chinese to withdraw their investments in Sudan because of the Darfur situation. This is, quite honestly speaking, ridiculous.
There hasn't been a boycott of the Olympics since 1984 when the Soviets and much of the Eastern Bloc boycotted the Games in the US after a similar action by the West during the Moscow games in 1980. Since then the games have been held in South Korea, Spain, the USA, Australia, and Athens. I don't recall widespread criticism of the Games being awarded to the United States for its support of right wing death squads in Latin America, nor do I recall Australia being singled out for its treatment of Aborigines and refugees from war zones. Similarly, the London Games of 2012 don't seem to be criticised for British action over the world. Are the athletes going to sign a "Free Iraq and Afghanistan" petition in 4 years ? Or how about a "Stop investing in Nigeria because of its human rights record" petition ? Assuming that Paris had been awarded the 2012 Games, would we have stood on our pedestals and started criticising France's support of countless African dictators ? How about an "Apologise for propping up Jean-Bedel Bokassa/Mobutu Sese Seko/Hissène Habré/Idriss Déby" petition ? Or maybe France should be forced to apologise for Napoleon's invasion of Russia before it is awarded any global celebration of sport again ?
Sportsmen are not politicians, let's not treat them as such. China isn't a shining light of human rights, but nor are most countries. Just because they're going to be richer than us in 50 years doesn't mean we should piss on their bonfire this month. So leave them alone !
There hasn't been a boycott of the Olympics since 1984 when the Soviets and much of the Eastern Bloc boycotted the Games in the US after a similar action by the West during the Moscow games in 1980. Since then the games have been held in South Korea, Spain, the USA, Australia, and Athens. I don't recall widespread criticism of the Games being awarded to the United States for its support of right wing death squads in Latin America, nor do I recall Australia being singled out for its treatment of Aborigines and refugees from war zones. Similarly, the London Games of 2012 don't seem to be criticised for British action over the world. Are the athletes going to sign a "Free Iraq and Afghanistan" petition in 4 years ? Or how about a "Stop investing in Nigeria because of its human rights record" petition ? Assuming that Paris had been awarded the 2012 Games, would we have stood on our pedestals and started criticising France's support of countless African dictators ? How about an "Apologise for propping up Jean-Bedel Bokassa/Mobutu Sese Seko/Hissène Habré/Idriss Déby" petition ? Or maybe France should be forced to apologise for Napoleon's invasion of Russia before it is awarded any global celebration of sport again ?
Sportsmen are not politicians, let's not treat them as such. China isn't a shining light of human rights, but nor are most countries. Just because they're going to be richer than us in 50 years doesn't mean we should piss on their bonfire this month. So leave them alone !
A Discussion of the Human Condition
Yesterday morning my letterbox made a sound and I found my Bradt guide to the Congos. which I'd ordered at the beginning of the week. I ploughed straight into it. It looks like a great part of the world to visit (which we're saving up to do next year) and, despite the differences between it and the parts of Africa that I know, it brought memories flooding back. One of the biggest differences between Africa and northern Europe is the social interaction, the possibility of just talking to anyone for hours on end about nothing at all without it seeming like space filler. It's just fun. This evening rather contrasted with this book and these memories.
I went to a bar tonight. Firstly, it was Friday. Secondly, there were birthday drinks. Thirdly, it was something to do. And last of all, I like places where other people are. It gives me a chance to be social outside of a computer geek setting, and to people watch. Generally, people watching is limited to looking at girls and to observing people doing weird things and being critical of this in a very cynical kind of way. It does have other uses too, though. Having lived in 3 countries and visited many others (and having visited bars in most of these places), it's easy to pick up on local habits, notice trends among people from different places, and then sometimes see them everywhere and get annoyed by them. Going to a Finnish bar is an intriguing experience in terms of people watching; it is, at once, and a good place to get to know the Finnish psyche and a bad place to get to know it. It's a bad place because people do tend to go out to get plastered here, which naturally unleashes the inner self which never exposes itself in times of sobriety. It's a good place, however, because in the same bar you can see a cross-section of society to a far wider degree than I've noticed anywhere else. A frequenter of a Finnish bar will conclude that practically the entire Finnish nation consists of 4 types of people:
- People who have dyed their hair black, usually have tattoos of bats or incomprehensible Chinese characters, and wear t-shirts bearing slogans like "DEATH", pictures of skulls, and so on. Such people will almost always be dressed in black and red. Optional extras include black fishnet tights over red leggings (for women) and a shaved head and large goatee beard, or long hair tied into a pony tail (for men).
- Middle aged women sitting drinking gin long-drinks accompanied by other middle aged women, looking somewhat uncomfortable. I'm tempted to say that they are possibly looking for male company to replace the husband who has ditched them but, given that I'm not qualified as a psychiatrist and have no knowledge of telepathy, it's outside my mandate to guess such things.
- Geeky looking guys, almost always wearing square glasses, with blonde hair tentatively gelled up into spikes, also looking uncomfortable. I'm tempted to say that they are possibly looking for female company, and that they are probably hoping that this company doesn't come along until they've had a couple more beers. While having no knowledge of telepathy, I'm confident of being fairly accurate with this suggestion.
- "Past it" old guys, with 3-day stubble revealing their 3-straight-days drinking habits, usually with faded tattoos, sleeveless vests (preferably leather) and glazed expressions. Nevertheless, these people (if they have been admitted to the bar in the first place) are quite animated, and will talk loudly and at length with whoever cares to listen.
If one has lots of money and the patience to go to a overhyped club which is just as crappy as the others but loved by the masses from the rich suburbs for some reason, you will discover a 5th type - the young professional who probably drives a sports car, does not own any clothes which cost less than 50€ (including socks), and will generally sit around talking about sports cars and expensive clothes (possibly not including socks).
In any case, today I noticed several things which I've decided to share with you all. Now, I know I have been quite negative about Finns on several occasions in this blog and I've explained the reasons for this. They happen to be a people that I have a lot of time for - they are honest to a fault, very friendly once you actually get to know them and, once they get pissed enough, quite chatty and open and curious about us foreigners. Sober, they're quite quiet - this bugged me at the beginning but I've understood now that silence is not awkward here and nothing to shy away from. Hard for me to understand, but that's just the way it is. However, there are a few things which I've noticed here enough to write down.
Tonight, for instance, there were 5 of us at a bar - me, and 4 of M's friends. On sitting at the table, 3 of them started speaking in Finnish to each other (which is completely understandable - even if maybe not from a linguistic point of view) and one of them got a newspaper out and started doing a crossword. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this slightly strange ? If I went to the bar with a group of friends and one got a beer and pulled out a crossword, I'd take that as quite a blatant social "fuck you" and wonder if this person wouldn't be happier at home. As it happened, the other three didn't bat an eyelid at this and continued their conversation. I stared into space and drank my pint. To me, this fits into the same category as the girl and guy at a bar both writing text messages which I've seen here and there, and the people who walk along with someone else and pull out an MP3 player and start listening to it. The silence-as-a-conversational-tactic thing is something I've got used to even if I don't really enjoy it - outwardly giving signs of turning away from social company in a "sorry you're too boring for me" is something I just don't get. Again, it seems to be something which is taken as unproblematic here and, again, this is not an essentially Finnish disease - I've seen it in various places. It does seem to be quite rampant here though, leading to my conclusion that it's generally accepted as OK. It's also quite a complicated social fabric to work out given that people seem to go very hot-and-cold on the whole issue (e.g. if I'm out with a group and manage to corner one or two of them, they're absolutely open and chatty and lovely people to be with, and I fade to the background again when we reintegrate the herd). I plan to continue the research.
I went to a bar tonight. Firstly, it was Friday. Secondly, there were birthday drinks. Thirdly, it was something to do. And last of all, I like places where other people are. It gives me a chance to be social outside of a computer geek setting, and to people watch. Generally, people watching is limited to looking at girls and to observing people doing weird things and being critical of this in a very cynical kind of way. It does have other uses too, though. Having lived in 3 countries and visited many others (and having visited bars in most of these places), it's easy to pick up on local habits, notice trends among people from different places, and then sometimes see them everywhere and get annoyed by them. Going to a Finnish bar is an intriguing experience in terms of people watching; it is, at once, and a good place to get to know the Finnish psyche and a bad place to get to know it. It's a bad place because people do tend to go out to get plastered here, which naturally unleashes the inner self which never exposes itself in times of sobriety. It's a good place, however, because in the same bar you can see a cross-section of society to a far wider degree than I've noticed anywhere else. A frequenter of a Finnish bar will conclude that practically the entire Finnish nation consists of 4 types of people:
- People who have dyed their hair black, usually have tattoos of bats or incomprehensible Chinese characters, and wear t-shirts bearing slogans like "DEATH", pictures of skulls, and so on. Such people will almost always be dressed in black and red. Optional extras include black fishnet tights over red leggings (for women) and a shaved head and large goatee beard, or long hair tied into a pony tail (for men).
- Middle aged women sitting drinking gin long-drinks accompanied by other middle aged women, looking somewhat uncomfortable. I'm tempted to say that they are possibly looking for male company to replace the husband who has ditched them but, given that I'm not qualified as a psychiatrist and have no knowledge of telepathy, it's outside my mandate to guess such things.
- Geeky looking guys, almost always wearing square glasses, with blonde hair tentatively gelled up into spikes, also looking uncomfortable. I'm tempted to say that they are possibly looking for female company, and that they are probably hoping that this company doesn't come along until they've had a couple more beers. While having no knowledge of telepathy, I'm confident of being fairly accurate with this suggestion.
- "Past it" old guys, with 3-day stubble revealing their 3-straight-days drinking habits, usually with faded tattoos, sleeveless vests (preferably leather) and glazed expressions. Nevertheless, these people (if they have been admitted to the bar in the first place) are quite animated, and will talk loudly and at length with whoever cares to listen.
If one has lots of money and the patience to go to a overhyped club which is just as crappy as the others but loved by the masses from the rich suburbs for some reason, you will discover a 5th type - the young professional who probably drives a sports car, does not own any clothes which cost less than 50€ (including socks), and will generally sit around talking about sports cars and expensive clothes (possibly not including socks).
In any case, today I noticed several things which I've decided to share with you all. Now, I know I have been quite negative about Finns on several occasions in this blog and I've explained the reasons for this. They happen to be a people that I have a lot of time for - they are honest to a fault, very friendly once you actually get to know them and, once they get pissed enough, quite chatty and open and curious about us foreigners. Sober, they're quite quiet - this bugged me at the beginning but I've understood now that silence is not awkward here and nothing to shy away from. Hard for me to understand, but that's just the way it is. However, there are a few things which I've noticed here enough to write down.
Tonight, for instance, there were 5 of us at a bar - me, and 4 of M's friends. On sitting at the table, 3 of them started speaking in Finnish to each other (which is completely understandable - even if maybe not from a linguistic point of view) and one of them got a newspaper out and started doing a crossword. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this slightly strange ? If I went to the bar with a group of friends and one got a beer and pulled out a crossword, I'd take that as quite a blatant social "fuck you" and wonder if this person wouldn't be happier at home. As it happened, the other three didn't bat an eyelid at this and continued their conversation. I stared into space and drank my pint. To me, this fits into the same category as the girl and guy at a bar both writing text messages which I've seen here and there, and the people who walk along with someone else and pull out an MP3 player and start listening to it. The silence-as-a-conversational-tactic thing is something I've got used to even if I don't really enjoy it - outwardly giving signs of turning away from social company in a "sorry you're too boring for me" is something I just don't get. Again, it seems to be something which is taken as unproblematic here and, again, this is not an essentially Finnish disease - I've seen it in various places. It does seem to be quite rampant here though, leading to my conclusion that it's generally accepted as OK. It's also quite a complicated social fabric to work out given that people seem to go very hot-and-cold on the whole issue (e.g. if I'm out with a group and manage to corner one or two of them, they're absolutely open and chatty and lovely people to be with, and I fade to the background again when we reintegrate the herd). I plan to continue the research.
Jul 30, 2008
Life in Helsinki Part 5 : Nutritional Information
Given that nothing of note has happened to me here (i.e. I've been at work, and Saturday night I went for some beer and played minigolf) this series can continue. I've already elaborated on some of the more difficult points of adapting to life in Finland for the foreigner, but one of these points has received considerable media exposure over the last couple of years. A quick look at Maslow's triangle of essential human needs will reveal that in order to live one needs communication, sunshine, clothing, sex (I've had another visitor to this site from Austria on that very subject), and the odd trip to the pub/Tallinn. This blog has covered all of those subjects and now the final issue, I'm sure you've all guessed, is food.
The Finnish culinary scene has come under somewhat of a microscope in recent times with both Silvio Berlusconi and Jacques Chirac having a good poke. The truth is though that the quality of food in this country, much like that of the women, varies enormously, from immensely tasty to downright dangerous. Firstly, one of the first things I ate in Finland - Mämmi. At this point even the Finns shudder, despite the fact that practically all of them eat it. It's an Easter "speciality" which everyone claims to hate, yet nearly everyone eats it anyway, just because that's what you do around Easter. It looks like crap (literally) and also tastes quite similar, even when, as the natives do, you absolutely drown it in cream. It looks something like this. Other appetising dishes include those made of blood - for instance sausages, small pancakes, and soup - as well as pea soup and a sausage which is so low on meat that, according to EU directives, it's actually a pastry. Sadly, most things don't actually taste of very much and it seems that this is because of some kind of Northern European healthy reflex which sees it absolutely impossible to get anything in the supermarkets which are not free of this or low on that. Add to this the fact that every person in the country is allergic to something (lactose, gluten, sugar, fresh air, you name it) and the task of finding something decent for the ordinary, unallergic, uncomplicated eater becomes rather more difficult. Getting a decent cheese in a shop, for instance, takes good luck and a decent map of the supermarket, and finding milk products which are not low-fat/lactose free/reduced calcium/in powdered form/etc. also takes quite a bit of dedication to the cause. I've also read that spices are not really used in Finland because of a traditional belief that they were harmful to the consumer's health. And in a country with such a high intake of alcohol that's quite amusing.
However, let's surprise you all here with a few revelations. Finland produces, in my opinion, far and away the best strawberries in the world. Strawberries !! You wouldn't expect them here and I thought it was some kind of joke the first time I saw them in a supermarket but they're bright and red, juicy and tasty and you don't buy them in a bag which says "reduced beta-carotene" or "vitamin free !". Secondly, anyone heard of a cloudberry ? They're strange little things that look like raspberries except that they're orange, and they don't taste like anything else I know. Finns make great cakes out of these and, for that matter they make great cakes out of most things. Anyone had beef jerky ? Well a Lappi speciality is reindeer jerky. Moose sausage is also pretty good and I've also eaten a moose curry, which wasn't bad. Moose steak is eaten with lingonberries, which is also tasty. The Lapps also have some kind of oven cheese which squeaks on your teeth when you eat it, and also tastes of something. Sadly that's the only cheese you can buy here which really tastes of anything at all, but it's a start So unlike what Chirac and Berlusconi seem to believe, the situation here isn't really all that bad. Going to a restaurant isn't something to be feared if you're going to eat Finnish food.
For some reason though, foreign restaurants in Helsinki are useless. The Chinese restaurants are pretty tasteless, and nothing much else exists. When a Moroccan restaurant opened last year, I went with watering taste buds thinking that I was actually going to eat something which was knowledgeably spiced, and came out thinking that it sucked. Fast food is expensive and, even after a heavy Finnish night out, tastes pretty crap. I guess part of the problem is that the largest immigrant communities in Finland are (at least this is what it seems to me, it's not backed up with statistics) Somali and Russian. Neither are exactly tasty food paradise and makes you wish that more Arabs, Indians, Chinese and Mexicans could be imported here. They would then be encouraged to start up decent restaurants instead of dodgy imitation chain restaurants.
Going to the supermarket is even more frustrating unless you live to eat ready-made things straight to the microwave or the oven. Go to a supermarket here and try to find something simple, like chicken for instance, and you'll see it's impossible !! Chicken in marinade, chicken soup, lactose-free chicken, all OK. Plain, untainted chicken breast, sorry - no can do. I won't go crying about it too much though, even if I do cry myself to sleep every night over the fact that I haven't eaten merguez for months or that to make a poulet yassa I have to deep clean the marinade off the chicken legs. I suppose the Finns go to Western Europe and complain that they can't find rotten fish, Mämmi, cloudberries, low-fat bacon, or lactose-free lactose. This is what intercultural dialogue is all about.
One more thing I'll stand up for Finland in is the following. When Chirac criticised Finnish cuisine, he did it indirectly by stating that Britain was "after Finland, the country with the worst food". This is not true. OK, Finnish food is on the whole quite tasteless, but comparing it unfavourably to British food is simply unfair.
The Finnish culinary scene has come under somewhat of a microscope in recent times with both Silvio Berlusconi and Jacques Chirac having a good poke. The truth is though that the quality of food in this country, much like that of the women, varies enormously, from immensely tasty to downright dangerous. Firstly, one of the first things I ate in Finland - Mämmi. At this point even the Finns shudder, despite the fact that practically all of them eat it. It's an Easter "speciality" which everyone claims to hate, yet nearly everyone eats it anyway, just because that's what you do around Easter. It looks like crap (literally) and also tastes quite similar, even when, as the natives do, you absolutely drown it in cream. It looks something like this. Other appetising dishes include those made of blood - for instance sausages, small pancakes, and soup - as well as pea soup and a sausage which is so low on meat that, according to EU directives, it's actually a pastry. Sadly, most things don't actually taste of very much and it seems that this is because of some kind of Northern European healthy reflex which sees it absolutely impossible to get anything in the supermarkets which are not free of this or low on that. Add to this the fact that every person in the country is allergic to something (lactose, gluten, sugar, fresh air, you name it) and the task of finding something decent for the ordinary, unallergic, uncomplicated eater becomes rather more difficult. Getting a decent cheese in a shop, for instance, takes good luck and a decent map of the supermarket, and finding milk products which are not low-fat/lactose free/reduced calcium/in powdered form/etc. also takes quite a bit of dedication to the cause. I've also read that spices are not really used in Finland because of a traditional belief that they were harmful to the consumer's health. And in a country with such a high intake of alcohol that's quite amusing.
However, let's surprise you all here with a few revelations. Finland produces, in my opinion, far and away the best strawberries in the world. Strawberries !! You wouldn't expect them here and I thought it was some kind of joke the first time I saw them in a supermarket but they're bright and red, juicy and tasty and you don't buy them in a bag which says "reduced beta-carotene" or "vitamin free !". Secondly, anyone heard of a cloudberry ? They're strange little things that look like raspberries except that they're orange, and they don't taste like anything else I know. Finns make great cakes out of these and, for that matter they make great cakes out of most things. Anyone had beef jerky ? Well a Lappi speciality is reindeer jerky. Moose sausage is also pretty good and I've also eaten a moose curry, which wasn't bad. Moose steak is eaten with lingonberries, which is also tasty. The Lapps also have some kind of oven cheese which squeaks on your teeth when you eat it, and also tastes of something. Sadly that's the only cheese you can buy here which really tastes of anything at all, but it's a start So unlike what Chirac and Berlusconi seem to believe, the situation here isn't really all that bad. Going to a restaurant isn't something to be feared if you're going to eat Finnish food.
For some reason though, foreign restaurants in Helsinki are useless. The Chinese restaurants are pretty tasteless, and nothing much else exists. When a Moroccan restaurant opened last year, I went with watering taste buds thinking that I was actually going to eat something which was knowledgeably spiced, and came out thinking that it sucked. Fast food is expensive and, even after a heavy Finnish night out, tastes pretty crap. I guess part of the problem is that the largest immigrant communities in Finland are (at least this is what it seems to me, it's not backed up with statistics) Somali and Russian. Neither are exactly tasty food paradise and makes you wish that more Arabs, Indians, Chinese and Mexicans could be imported here. They would then be encouraged to start up decent restaurants instead of dodgy imitation chain restaurants.
Going to the supermarket is even more frustrating unless you live to eat ready-made things straight to the microwave or the oven. Go to a supermarket here and try to find something simple, like chicken for instance, and you'll see it's impossible !! Chicken in marinade, chicken soup, lactose-free chicken, all OK. Plain, untainted chicken breast, sorry - no can do. I won't go crying about it too much though, even if I do cry myself to sleep every night over the fact that I haven't eaten merguez for months or that to make a poulet yassa I have to deep clean the marinade off the chicken legs. I suppose the Finns go to Western Europe and complain that they can't find rotten fish, Mämmi, cloudberries, low-fat bacon, or lactose-free lactose. This is what intercultural dialogue is all about.
One more thing I'll stand up for Finland in is the following. When Chirac criticised Finnish cuisine, he did it indirectly by stating that Britain was "after Finland, the country with the worst food". This is not true. OK, Finnish food is on the whole quite tasteless, but comparing it unfavourably to British food is simply unfair.
Jul 12, 2008
A couple of small thoughts
A couple of small thoughts in no particular order.
Firstly, since writing the article "Sex sells" I've had 4 visitors who have come to this site specifically having gone to Google and searched for sex-related themes - one from Israel, one from Iran, one from the United Arab Emirates and one from France. I think that's a reasonable amount, given that this blog doesn't contain any porno or erotic literature or whatever. Maybe I should continue the research and write a steamy story and see how many people click onto me then... As a further sign of this, M has told me she doesn't read Teppo M's blog any more, the reason being that he isn't writing it any more. The reason for this ? His story has been bought out by a publishing house and a company planning to make a movie about his story. Yup...
Secondly, I have been quite negative about Finland and Finns so far in this blog. This shouldn't be taken in the wrong way - I know many very nice and friendly (and even talkative !!) Finns here and I think the country is one of the most beautiful in Europe, even if it could probably do with having a mountain or 2 to break the monotony. I like to entertain though and the truth is, like it or not, that taking the piss generally offers more opportunities to have some cheap fun than saying how lovely this or that is. So, yes, I am presenting this country and its inhabitants in an unbalanced way. It's not to make everyone hate you, my fellow residents of this frozen wasteland, it's just to try and make people smile.
Firstly, since writing the article "Sex sells" I've had 4 visitors who have come to this site specifically having gone to Google and searched for sex-related themes - one from Israel, one from Iran, one from the United Arab Emirates and one from France. I think that's a reasonable amount, given that this blog doesn't contain any porno or erotic literature or whatever. Maybe I should continue the research and write a steamy story and see how many people click onto me then... As a further sign of this, M has told me she doesn't read Teppo M's blog any more, the reason being that he isn't writing it any more. The reason for this ? His story has been bought out by a publishing house and a company planning to make a movie about his story. Yup...
Secondly, I have been quite negative about Finland and Finns so far in this blog. This shouldn't be taken in the wrong way - I know many very nice and friendly (and even talkative !!) Finns here and I think the country is one of the most beautiful in Europe, even if it could probably do with having a mountain or 2 to break the monotony. I like to entertain though and the truth is, like it or not, that taking the piss generally offers more opportunities to have some cheap fun than saying how lovely this or that is. So, yes, I am presenting this country and its inhabitants in an unbalanced way. It's not to make everyone hate you, my fellow residents of this frozen wasteland, it's just to try and make people smile.
Hey Rastaman !
First up, an explanation for the lack of text recently. I moved house, had the flu, got a new job, and then spent a week working it. I'm now a tester and translator for mobile phone video games, spending my day translating simple phrases from English to French and then playing games for hours on end, surrounded by computer geeks. And they actually pay me for this ! It's great.
Now, onto the main idea. Looking at the title of this entry - it's not only black guys with dreadlocks who have this said to them. It's also white guys who go around with either necklaces or bracelets with red, green and yellow on them. You'll usually be drowned in comments with mock Jamaican accents like "Rastafari !" or "De colours of Jomaaaica maan !". If you say this to me, then you'll expect quite a bit of a lecture back in return. Red, green and yellow are not the colours of Jamaica - look at the flag. It has black on it, and also has no red on it. Look at the flag of Ethiopia instead, or the flag of numerous other African countries. These other countries adopted the colours of Ethiopia as a sign of pride in and respect for Ethiopia, which was the only country in Africa to successfully resist colonisation. The Rastafarian religion is Jamaican, as is reggae music. The colours associated with them, however, were adopted from Ethiopia and their God is Haile Selassie I, former Emperor of Ethiopia, seen as the chosen leader of the black community given that, in the 1930s when the Rastafarian movement began, Haile Selassie was the only recognised black head of state in the international community. Rastafarianism teaches that the black population of the western hemisphere was stolen from Africa and must live as close as possible to African ways while awaiting their return to the continent of their roots.
Anyone who's listened to reggae will know they go on about lions a lot - this, again, comes from the fact that the Emperors of Ethiopia claimed descent from the Queen of Sheba and the Israelite tribe of Judah which had a lion as its symbol. Given that these guys then went on to rule Ethiopia, they referred to themselves as the Conquering Lions of Judah. Haile Selassie had loads of lions in his garden as pets.
Another line I heard a lot is "reggae singers go on about Zion ! They want to go to Israel !" which is not true either. Zion as a concept is a utopia or a promised land. It was a word which indeed came from Jewish lore, as a hill in the area of Jerusalem has been called Mount Zion for several millenia. Obviously, as a consequence, history has placed Zion in the Jewish context given their status as a population in exile for those few millenia and the Jewish yearning for the promised land has been dubbed Zionism. Rastas, though, refer to Africa in general and a historically independent Ethiopia in particular as their zion, or promised land.
It doesn't stop there, however. After I went to an interview a few weeks ago wearing them, M warned me against doing it for any high level job. Not because it would come across as not being serious, but because I would be assumed to be a pothead. "What ??!" I enquired. She told me that this is what these colours are associated with here. So in Finland it's not even associated with a country with which it shouldn't be, but just places me into a serial waster category, which is even more interesting if depressing. I'm sure this happens in a lot of other places too, although Finland does have quite a strange fixation with weed. Having grown up in a country where you can see people sitting around in the capital's main square smoking up freely in the summer, it comes as a bit of a shock here when you roll a cigarette and people look at you curiously and say "joint ????". And it happens a lot too. Sure, everyone jumps to conclusions, but to assume I'm too much of a joint smoker to do a job properly just because I happened to buy some beads in Senegal (whose flag is red, yellow and green) does seem to me to be pushing the boat out a bit too far.
So, to recap, given the strong identification of Rastafarians with Ethiopia, the colours that crop up in Rasta culture are the same as the ones which crop up in Ethiopia. So when you see me with these necklaces, drop the Jamaican accent. I've never been to Kingston and I got these necklaces and bracelets in Africa. Also, less than 1 in 10 Jamaicans is Rastafarian. So even if these colours are loosely linked to the religion and the music, they have nothing to do with the country. Thank you.
Now, onto the main idea. Looking at the title of this entry - it's not only black guys with dreadlocks who have this said to them. It's also white guys who go around with either necklaces or bracelets with red, green and yellow on them. You'll usually be drowned in comments with mock Jamaican accents like "Rastafari !" or "De colours of Jomaaaica maan !". If you say this to me, then you'll expect quite a bit of a lecture back in return. Red, green and yellow are not the colours of Jamaica - look at the flag. It has black on it, and also has no red on it. Look at the flag of Ethiopia instead, or the flag of numerous other African countries. These other countries adopted the colours of Ethiopia as a sign of pride in and respect for Ethiopia, which was the only country in Africa to successfully resist colonisation. The Rastafarian religion is Jamaican, as is reggae music. The colours associated with them, however, were adopted from Ethiopia and their God is Haile Selassie I, former Emperor of Ethiopia, seen as the chosen leader of the black community given that, in the 1930s when the Rastafarian movement began, Haile Selassie was the only recognised black head of state in the international community. Rastafarianism teaches that the black population of the western hemisphere was stolen from Africa and must live as close as possible to African ways while awaiting their return to the continent of their roots.
Anyone who's listened to reggae will know they go on about lions a lot - this, again, comes from the fact that the Emperors of Ethiopia claimed descent from the Queen of Sheba and the Israelite tribe of Judah which had a lion as its symbol. Given that these guys then went on to rule Ethiopia, they referred to themselves as the Conquering Lions of Judah. Haile Selassie had loads of lions in his garden as pets.
Another line I heard a lot is "reggae singers go on about Zion ! They want to go to Israel !" which is not true either. Zion as a concept is a utopia or a promised land. It was a word which indeed came from Jewish lore, as a hill in the area of Jerusalem has been called Mount Zion for several millenia. Obviously, as a consequence, history has placed Zion in the Jewish context given their status as a population in exile for those few millenia and the Jewish yearning for the promised land has been dubbed Zionism. Rastas, though, refer to Africa in general and a historically independent Ethiopia in particular as their zion, or promised land.
It doesn't stop there, however. After I went to an interview a few weeks ago wearing them, M warned me against doing it for any high level job. Not because it would come across as not being serious, but because I would be assumed to be a pothead. "What ??!" I enquired. She told me that this is what these colours are associated with here. So in Finland it's not even associated with a country with which it shouldn't be, but just places me into a serial waster category, which is even more interesting if depressing. I'm sure this happens in a lot of other places too, although Finland does have quite a strange fixation with weed. Having grown up in a country where you can see people sitting around in the capital's main square smoking up freely in the summer, it comes as a bit of a shock here when you roll a cigarette and people look at you curiously and say "joint ????". And it happens a lot too. Sure, everyone jumps to conclusions, but to assume I'm too much of a joint smoker to do a job properly just because I happened to buy some beads in Senegal (whose flag is red, yellow and green) does seem to me to be pushing the boat out a bit too far.
So, to recap, given the strong identification of Rastafarians with Ethiopia, the colours that crop up in Rasta culture are the same as the ones which crop up in Ethiopia. So when you see me with these necklaces, drop the Jamaican accent. I've never been to Kingston and I got these necklaces and bracelets in Africa. Also, less than 1 in 10 Jamaicans is Rastafarian. So even if these colours are loosely linked to the religion and the music, they have nothing to do with the country. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)
