Another day another victory for a xenophobic nationalist party in Europe.

They're dropping like flies. The latest victim to succumb to the smooth-talking bigots is Finland, that mysterious country I've always wanted to move to, for literally no other reason than being inexplicably but desperately in love with the sound of the language.

I'm beginning to think the prophecy might be about to come true. That's the prophecy that Ariyeh King, uber-zionist and founder of the Israel Land Fund (which organizes the building of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land), made during our discussion in the pleasant and leafy courtyard of the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem.

In King's estimation, the levels of discrimination and division that exist in Israel, though they would make the founders of apartheid proud, will soon appear moderate in comparison to the massive scale of racism within Europe. This phenomenon, he predicts, will eventually culminate in a full-scale expulsion of immigrants (islamic, essentially) or even, presumably in the case where they fail to go quietly, “a war”.

To back up this contentious proposal, he cited the bans on minarets in Switzerland, and on the veil in France. But he didn't have to stop there. He could also have mentioned the creeping banalisation of the far-right discourse in the UK (English Defence League "spokesperson" invited onto Newsnight, and then allowed to leave freely afterwards?). Or even the way that European countries like France, Austria and Germany, those great shining beacons of human rights, have pulled up the drawbridges, shut their borders and told trains carrying migrants from North Africa to kindly go back from whence they came (unfortunately for them that was Italy - the country that either allows migrants to drown in the sea, or uses military weapons to prevent them from entering).

The case of the French burka law is particularly staggering. Apart from the fact that virtually every other type of face-covering conceivable appeared to be exempt from the law, I must confess I fail to understand the logic by which making the wearing of an item of clothing into a political offence empowers muslim women and instantly frees them from the complex social and religious structures of oppression that hold them back. Although it did clearly succeed in empowering the two women in burkas who promptly went out and got arrested. Good for them, standing up for themselves, exercising their right to protest, that's what freedom is all about!

Because that was the point, right? It wasn't just about legitimising a pernicious perspective whereby people who do things a bit differently and don't look like the majority are automatically flouting, and engaged in a lifestyle totally incompatible with, the fundamental values upon which the republic was founded, was it? Or was it a pathetic last-ditch attempt by Sarkozy to drag up the opinion poll ratings a notch or two before the election campaigns get underway? No, probably and yes, respectively, would be my guesses.

Suffice to say, there is no shortage of reasons not to be cheerful. The lies, the racism, the political opportunism of it all is, like, wow. But when has it been any other way, in Europe…

Still. No amount of relativising matters historically makes it possible to stomach anti-immigrant politicians bemoaning the relentless influx of scroungers and criminals into their previously edenic nations, who are then treated like privileged citizens to the detriment of the white working-class (especially male, weirdly enough) population. While at the same time barely adult victims of sex-trafiking are being deported. Wonder what demographic of society is generally driving this trade by frequenting these kinds of girls? Hmm, on the other hand, perhaps best not to...

I have to commend the Guardian for helping to raise awareness recently of just some of the projects, organisations and charities that are going to get axed by the cuts. Given the way David Cameron's government has run its operations so far one might be tempted to think they're doing it on purpose, actively seeking to elicit as much outrage as possible at their attempts to destroy the social fabric of absolutely everything in an attempt to shake us out of our complacency and remind us what's important in society, what needs protecting.

So maybe we'll have to wait it out. For a few more nationalists to celebrate their landslide victories, and a few more fascist lunatics to get scarily close, to the point where things have gotten so bad that nobody can get away with ridiculous arguments about politics correctness gone made or immigrants being treated like royalty. To the point where one day Europeans wake up and realise that they are putting the Israelis to shame. That for all their routine violations of the basic rights of Palestinians, bulldozing through houses and cutting off water supplies, they look like care-bears compared to the bigoted, racist pieces of work leading most European countries.

Maybe then we'll remember why it was so important to fear racism.

The Problem with Public Displays of Integrity

Two peculiar instances of apparent about-turns caught my eye recently. In the case of Richard Goldstone and the report into Cast Lead, it is the timing that is surprising. In the case of George Monbiot's sudden penchant for nuclear energy, it is strength of the statements he's made in its defence that seems uncanny. It's almost enough to make one suspect the "other side" got to them in some way, especially knowing who those sides are.

Monbiot's trajectory began with an article hinting that nuclear power may not be so bad after all, followed by a piece in which he as an individual came out in active support of it, and now by a piece in which he denounced members of a movement to which he once belonged for not being completely coherent.

Monbiot dismisses the arguments made by John Vidal, in response to his previous article, on the basis that he doesn't provide irrefutable evidence of linkages between the phenomena that were and still are observable in the region surrounding the Tchernobyl powerplant, and the meltdown of this plant.

I'm not a scientist, but I have it on a good authority that there are many linkages between phenomena that cannot be fully explained, yet all the evidence suggests the link is there. A number of medical treatments, for instance, are prescribed on the basis that they work - but we don't know yet quite how they work.

I may have found the anti-nuclear campaigners' response to Japan tactless but Monbiot's accusations of deliberately misleading people seems a step too far.

And yet I understand why he did it. The Green movement is one that has many principles. Within its ranks are individuals who admirably hold themselves to very high ethical standards. To an extent which I think it pretty much unique. Monbiot's response to what he regarded as misrepresentation of "the facts" has reinforced this opinion.

But it's also bloody stupid. Stupid, I mean, to admit weaknesses in public, to confess to nagging doubts and open criticisms in the face of such powerful forces who tend to interpret these matters in black and white terms, for their own interests.

As if the nuclear industry or the ruling class in Israel are whiter than white in their own representations. Politicians and the media, not to mention private companies, routinely distort and manipulate information for any number of reasons. Does Monbiot feel that environmental campaigners are so well placed, or their views so dominant, that they can afford to be undermined by giving their opponents such gifts? Knowing, of course, that these opponents would never do the same for them and knowing also how, unfortunately, public debate often fails to take into account the nuances of such arguments, but rather zooms in on the headlines, the soundbites, and runs with them.

Being exposed to some of the Israeli press concerning Goldstone's qualification of the earlier report, at the time, allowed me to gain some insight into the way it was interpreted by the media and politicians there. Namely, that it was immediately seized upon as evidence that the whole report was flawed and invalid, regarding this admission as equating to a revocation of the entire report, and, in the words of Netanyahu, confining it to the "dustbin of history". However educated and refined these individuals no doubt are, the level of appreciation for nuance here is clear.

No doubt the nuclear industry & its lobbies are not far behind, driven as they are by stakeholders and profit, rather than a long-term vision for the perpetuation of the planet, as is the case for environmentalists.

This article commended Goldstone for his statement, describing him as "a man of integrity and independence... It's the easiest thing in the world to stay silent; to come out in this very public fashion is a brave act."

I agree with this. I think it is absolutely the right and correct thing to do. I admire fervently the integrity of those who admit their weaknesses and mistakes in public without being pushed. They are few and far between. But I have to ask - what is the use, when they are not greeted with reflection and willingness to compromise, but rather manipulated and taken out of context as a total victory for those being criticised?

My argument, and it is a practical one for an un-ideal world, is that such admissions should be confined to within the ranks of an organisation or movement, in such circumstances. In this way, the aims of integrity and consistency can be acheieved, and mistakes can be learned from.

But there is also a question of responsability here, not only utility. It is not just about protecting credibility and political reputations. It is also about refraining from handing such criticisms over to those who would use them to the detriment of others.

So in we went.

At this point I've heard compelling arguments from both sides. Off the top of my head, I'd be fascinated to hear Daniel Cohn-Bendit debate Simon Jenkins on the question.

There's those who want to draw lessons from Iraq, those who'd sooner look to Bosnia, and all the various other precedents that've been mobilised to support a particular course of action, or inaction. When we can't seem to agree which history it is that we do not want to repeat, taking a clear moral position becomes tricky.

In such morally ambiguous situations, one feels small. I certainly do, and so this post isn't meant to be a political "prise de position" based on which stance is more ethical. But on that note - quick parenthesis - although I wouldnt align myself with it completely, perhaps it's worth recalling Chomsky's view of Obama. It may sound cynical but to me it's an alarming reminder of fears voiced by some back in 2008 that under the Obama administration "regime change" and power politics would be rebranded and acquire a renewed legitimacy after the Bush era. Just in passing.

Actually, I'd rather keep my distances and comment instead on a particular aspect of the semantics of the coverage and the debate, such as it comes across to me, at least.

At the same time as European nations are intervening and putting the lives of some of their own citizens at risk for the people of North Africa - this is occuring.

Is it contradictory that navy ships sent to help the rebels are also blocking escaping boats, or that democratic countries that happen to be in the south of Europe allow immigrants to drown at paddling distance from their shores? I think so.

It seems that the situation in Libya is one of at least two pivotal events currently unfolding in the world informed by this syndrome.

In the case of Libya, I think this work of mental abstraction operates in a somewhat incoherent way. If we see people in collective terms then there's two big sets - the heroic figures of the revolution - the protestors risking everything fighting for freedom, who are admired, as opposed to the hordes of asylum-seekers whom we fear and dread.

The process of abstraction which turns individuals into statistics or "illegalises" them, is encouraged and even made inevitable by the political language that characterises the debate about immigration. Like all discourses, it is far from innocuous, but I'd say this one is particularly corrosive.

In her article "Welcome to Britain: the cultural politics of asylum", Imogen Tyler makes a number of very important points about the rhetoric surrounding immigration. The popularisation and banalisation of the term "asylum seeker", as essentially a synonym for a scrounger or a criminal, has been encouraged by mainstream political parties and taken up by most of the media. The worst xenophobic discourses (found in tabloids largely) depict the asylum-seeker as a dehumanised, undifferentiated foreign mass or influx.

The figure of the asylum-seeker invokes the "non-status" of a person who has not been recognised as a refugee - someone who is literally pending recognition. Tyler argues that "inscribing the category of asylum-seeker in British law through the enactment of a series of punitive asylum laws has enabled the British government to manoeuvre around the rights of the refugee as prescribed by international law."

This discourse then identifies and excludes individuals as asylum-seekers on the one hand, and secures the imaginary borders of nations and shores up a normative fantasy of national identity on the other. It also conveniently obscures all the complexity of the phenomenon.

Interestingly, Tyler also speaks of the tension that exists between the urgency of staking a political claim (on behalf of asylum-seekers, for example) and the need to reflect critically on the language in which those claims are made. In other words, although the way politicians and NGOs formulate their arguments and responses may be to some extent complicit with the xenophobic discourses, sometimes the humanitarian urgency is such that there is little time to reconfigure the terms of the debate. I think this is pertinent to the case of Libya where, while the critical thinkers are reflecting sociologically about the terms of the debate, Gadaffi is busy massacring his people. Dilemma.

So I won't denounce the intervention. I will save my condemnations for Marine Le Pen, who went to Lampedusa last week. It's a bit like if Bruno Gollnisch went to visit Auschwitz. It's like when Nicolas Sarkozy went to Turkey. It's an insult. A calculated, cynical insult, designed to impress domestic audiences and win brownie points with voters at home. Incidentally the most conservative, reactionary, racist breed of voters.

The fact that people respond to major catastrophes in the manner described by Chakrabortty means that so often, international crises are met by domestic responses. This seems to me the way that many responded to the nuclear crisis in Japan. In Libya, there is a disconnect between the two responses. It does not add up to declare unflinching support for citizens in a country and yet treat those fleeing danger as potential criminals. We need to connect the dots, and fast.

(UPDATE: This article is very insightful about the way Italy in particular frames the question of immigration in terms of security and criminality, requiring a military rather than humanitarian response)

There have been a lot of emotional reactions about Japan among the political family to whom I owe my current day-job.

Some of the emotion has been of this order. The French Greens statement mentions immense anger, clenched fists, heavy hearts, before going on to declare that the Greens are on the front line fighting against "this war humanity has unleashed against itself". Poetic, if you like your poetry seething with righteous indignation.

Then there is the emotion in response to these type of reactions, which sees the instrumentalisation of a still unfolding human tragedy on a massive scale as something Greens should aspire to being above. And in response to some of the thinly veiled messages of "we told you so". Then again, Europe Ecologie clearly didn't feel the need to veil anything, they just went ahead and bluntly said that the Japanese were likely to pay "pay a heavy price" for the carelessness of the choice to use nuclear energy, "contrary to all reason". Especially given the timing, this was really the final kick in the teeth in a statement that is so pompous and so offensive to anyone whose been affected by the disaster, as to make one wonder how certain members of the Party with a conscience could possibly have allowed it to be released.

This seems to be the worst of a series of reactions which had the unfortunate side-effect of undermining any criticism by Greens of the nuclear industry lobbyists who rushed to defend nuclear, as quickly as they themselves rushed to condemn it. It meant that the Australians were skating on very thin ice when they denounced the "undignified scramble from nuclear power advocates to trivialise the unfolding disaster at Fukushima in order to promote the technology".

What's more, it seems that it's precisely this kind of hyperbolic, excessive language that many in Japan have criticised and warned against. At least from what I've gleaned so far from those on the ground, qualifications of a "nuclear apocalypse" and other such epithets seem to be regarded as misguiding and infuriating. Descriptions of a "mass exodus" or the immense of another Tchernobyl only serve to disinform and fuel mass hysteria, as well as to detract attention from the genuinely devastating aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami.

Besides all this emotion there were also incredibly dignified and elegant statements, such as that of MEP Philippe Lamberts who warned against fueling a hasty debate and argued that the Greens' views on nuclear energy are well-known, and that now was not the time to restate them. Groenlinks, the Dutch Greens have also shown commendable restraint.

There have since been a number of pieces making more technical arguments for not saying no point blank to nuclear, such as Monbiot's piece. For me this is almost a step too far. What I've been feeling incredibly uneasy about is the way the situation in Japan has been used as a vehicle to further domestic political aims concerning nuclear energy, which detracts attention away from the continuing effects of the natural disaster. But there is also something problematic about a stance on any issue that can consists of only a 2 or 3 letter word. Experience teaches us that there is almost always slightly more to it than that. So the fact that there appears to be a diversity of perspectives within the Greens is no bad thing and in fact it's part of what makes it one of the healthier political movements.

One of the really strong points the Greens have going for them is precisely the fact that they have the kind of integrity and long-term vision which means they don't operate in a way determined by political opportunism, and short-term incentives allowing them to gain popularity. In other words, without playing the political game in such a cynical way, and without exploiting the misfortunes of others elsewhere to further their own agendas at home, on principle, however noble that agenda may be in our estimation.

Perhaps it is naive to think that Greens can operate in the world of politics without playing the game to some extent. They want to implement their ideas and that necessarily means chasing votes, whether we like it or not. But there's a careful balance that needs to be kept. Because making too many compromises for vote-scoring will undermine precisely the strengths and qualities which make them remarkable and unique.

Quotas: scratching the surface to hide what's underneath

I dislike quotas. But not for the same reasons that many high-flying business-women and politicians dislike them, women who are as bright as they are ruthless, and who constantly like to remind us they can make it their own, thanks all the same.

The problem with quotas is that they allow us to make up the numbers without tackling the root causes of the inequality. It allows us to keep on with "business as usual" while comforting ourselves that, on paper, everyone is perfectly equal. But essentially, it's cheating.

If you want to see how it's done, or being done, we must of course point to the scandies, as sociologists so often have to do. Women did not get to the 3 most powerful political positions in Finland without a bit of childcare provision, it's safe to say. But it's not just about material provision, it goes far deeper than that.

Essentially it's about creating the social conditions which provide real equality of opportunity. For this, there are no shortcuts, and it is misleading to say otherwise. Women go to school, they get degrees. Isn't this enough? Apparently not, at least for the women who get written off before they've even had a chance to open their mouths or prove their merit in any way. Like the lines-person who was the unfortunate subject of the humorously-intended remarks of Gray & Keys, as was so eloquently pointed out by a young woman on Question Time when the matter was discussed. While Katie Hopkins pathetically defended them with the observation that "it's a tough world out there" - an argument which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would require the dismantling of all social provision, all rights for everyone, and indeed the dissolution of the entire fabric of society. Then finally we'd no doubt all be able appreciate just how tough a world it really is, and much good may it do us.

I never thought I'd put the words "good article Mariella Frostrup" in such close proximity, but hers was one of the best pieces I saw around International Women's Day. Her point about the lack of social acceptance of feminism is particularly insightful:

"75% of civilians killed in war are women and children, causing Major-General Patrick Cammaert, the former UN peacekeeping commander in the Democratic Republic of Congo, to declare in 2008: "It is now more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in modern conflict."

These are staggering statistics, and yet not powerful enough to make arguing for women's rights a respectable pursuit, rather than the aggressive histrionics of popular perception. International Women's Day, the one day a year when we're encouraged to celebrate what we've achieved and highlight what still needs to be done, conjures less bile than the F word, but also more apathy.

But, Top Gear presenters aside, I wonder if members of either sex actually disagree with what feminism set out to achieve, which is the social, economic and political equality of the sexes (see any definition for confirmation of those goals). Better yet, it's a battle we've all but won."

I for one am so BORED of hearing about the "attack on the middle-class white male" and "political correctness gone mad", rattled off by people without even once having the presence of mind to think that perhaps they aren't best placed to know exactly what it's like for people who aren't in their position. Walk a mile and all that. The whole point about muslims/women/vaguely foreign looking people having to work twice as hard for the same money/recognition is that it is part of a process that is not obvious, that is by its very nature invisible.

Still, maybe there wouldn't be so much feminist-bashing if men didn't feel ever so slightly threatened. And yet all the statistics and numbers point to the fact that there is every reason for complacency among chauvinists and misogynists. The gaps are not closing. Women are still hardest hit by poverty, violence and economic hardship the world over. In Europe they are not payed as much, they are still victim to all manner of double standards about social behavior, and recent statistics showed that even in our "progressive western" societies, women still do the vast majority of the work in the household, including where children are concerned. Apparently all this is not reason enough to be reassured, because at the minutest sign of any preferential treatment being given to redress the balance even a touch - outpourings of indignation inevitably follow. And not just among men.

Oh boy, are women complicit. Women are the first to denounce in vitriolic terms feminism, quotas, positive discrimination or any kind of special treatment. Presumably some of them do it to gain credibility among their male competitors but I'm sure others are genuinely convinced. And there is not a lot that can be done about that, in the short term.

Women, as a whole, especially older women, are the most conservative, reactionary pro-status-quo demographic there is (and its a pretty sizable demographic). The pressures and messages about behavior that older generations of women project onto younger generations has a massive impact, not least in contributing to the internalising of the little voice inside women's heads that holds them back. It's profoundly cultural, and this is what makes it so complex.

And there's no getting away from the fact that we're all products of culture. Germaine Greer said that the problem is that "women like men but men don't really like women". I would have to say that I think it's women who have the problem with other women, essentially bound up with the problems they have with themselves (just look at my spiteful opening paragraph). And that applies to people whose sense of self-worth is undermined for any reason, whether it's to do with skin tone, sex, religion, ethnicity, whatever. We develop mechanisms to defend ourselves, often unconsciously. So in addition to being cultural, its also psychological. The only way these things change is through a deep, societal shift in attitudes, and inevitably it takes time.

But of course, I don't mean by this that it is an organic inevitable process that needs to be left to itself. The people and organisations who "manufacture" culture, in the arts and the media for example, have a crucial role to play. When Miriam O'Reilly successfully took the BBC to court for ageism, Nick Ross dismissed it by saying that TV has to be fashion-conscious (presumably he himself never went out of fashion in the whole 3 decades during which he was a presenter) - as if social trends were something divinely bestowed from the sky as opposed to very superficial and transient moods which images in the media play a key role to shape and perpetuate.

It's really heartening to see the men who do actually have the confidence to take feminism seriously rather than just seeing it as an attack on their entire gender. It's still almost shocking to hear a man declare he is a feminist. But things are not so good that we can afford to be glib and sarky about it all, on women's day of all days.

As for women, I personally am pessimistic about the prospects of a united global alliance of women, a world feminist movement if you will. How does one get that volume and sheer diversity of people under the same banner? And why should we have to. Isn't it enough to see women in the Tahrir squares of North Africa and the world to be inspired? Or Aung San Su Kii's quiet yet utterly fearless ongoing struggle. Rather than trying to speak on behalf of all women everywhere with a single political agenda, international women's day is as good a day as any to be quiet for a minute and reflect on the challenges people face everyday, whether its mothers in the European Parliament, black people in Poland or travellers in the British isles. To recognise their achievements, struggles and to think about how we can make the world a better one for them, and as a result, for everyone. Unfortunately, our staunch guardians against political correctness, the Rosses, Keyses and Grays of the world, despite being the ones who could benefit most from such empathy and momentary reflection, are the ones least likely to engage in it. it's too late for them, they won't change. We can only hope that they are a breed facing inexorable extinction.

Having watched the recent debut series of Come Fly With Me, the much-hyped BBC production of the cult-duo Walliams & that other guy, I was greatly disturbed to come across the following diatribe, leveling accusations of racism and gratuitous use of crude national stereotypes against the programme. Not least because the charges come from someone with a foreign sounding name and a non-white face, and thus cannot be dismissed out of hand, though the critic may well be as British and middle-class as they come, who knows.

I was disturbed primarily because I like to think of myself as acutely sensitive to, and intolerant of, racism, even in comedy (It was certainly no excuse for the time Michael Gambon told a black joke on the late late show). But also because I would equally like to regard myself as the last person who would laugh at crude national stereotypes. When it comes to caucasions getting offended on behalf of minorities, or sticking up for political correctness, I'm normally first in line. Except of course, it's not on their behalf, it's on mine as well. Because objecting to racial stereotypes shouldn't be the sole preserve of the "ethnically inclined". However, they do of course have special privileges when it comes to determining what is objectionable and what isn't, subjective as that is.

Did the fact that I found Come Fly With Me genuinely funny blind me to its abhorrent underlying racism? I didn't even register the fact that "blacking up" was used as a device. How can this be?

Upon reflection, I think I have found a way out of this conundrum, and made amends with my conscience. For me, by far the funniest character in the programme was Ian Foot, the bigoted immigrations officer, who stops people with foreign sounding names, and whose mantra is "If in doubt, keep'em out". One of the reasons this character was so brilliant was because, as you might be aware if you've had the misfortune of tuning in to one of the deeply distressing border police documentaries, this attitude appears to be the norm among immigration officials. And certainly is the norm among vast daily-mail reading swathes of the population.

The two black characters were less funny, but they weren't offensive. And there was something inherently British about both of them. Is there an argument that British comedians (who are patently not racist themselves - a key point!) do have a certain license to make fun of other brits, even if they themselves happen to be lighter-skinned? Especially when they do it alongside parodies of bigoted white men? I'm not sure I'm being fully consistent with my own policies by claiming so.

I don't know, maybe it is just because I happen to find these crude national stereotypes funny, that I'm being an apologist. But quite frankly, I think ridiculing the prejudiced immigration officer and his absurd racial profiling is progressive comedy with a social conscience which discredits any allegations of racism, if not crudeness. All of the characters are parodies and none of them are particularly dignified. I certainly don't think that just making them white-only would be a victory for opponents of racism.

When dealing with questions of the metaphysical, is it really necessary to sky-rocket so very far from planet earth?

The scathing indictments of religion that have appeared in some British newspapers recently, such as the pieces of Polly Toynbee and Nick Cohen in the Guardian, are heartening to the extent that they demonstrate there are no longer any barriers to expressing such opinions. But I can't help thinking that, rather than mockery or apathy, a frank and respectful debate about what religion really means to us would be more helpful. Not with the pope of course, because you don't debate with fundamentalists, of any stripe, but rather with critical believers such as the reverend/philosopher Giles Fraser, or even Tariq Ramadan. The people who are trying to make the bridge between supposedly distinct "worlds" - like the so-called muslim world and the secular world.

This binary view has of course nothing to do with the reality, where the majority of believers from all faiths are perfectly adapted to life in "secular" societies, and are no less tolerant and open-minded than anyone else, they just happen to believe in God. To bring in a buzzword that may grate on some - hybridity has always been the "mot d'ordre" when it comes to religion, just like all other aspects of society. The fact that the main religions have become mythologised by a "purifying discourse" which paints them as sacred, coherent wholes that have eternally been that way ever since the day they were dropped from the sky, serves to obscure the fact that actually - all religions are an accumulation of a series of traditions and diverse influences that developped over time. They borrowed, shifted and evolved as much as all cultures do - because that's what they are - elements of culture.

But setting aside this assertion, which those who adhere to a faith would find it tough to swallow, elements of hybridity can be seen everywhere - whether in the surreal juxtaposition of islamisation and americanisation in the form of the "Hallal hamburger" at fast food joints in Europe, or the myriad ways in which religious people bend and alter the practices and requirements of their religions to render them compatible with their daily lives. And its not new. Practices undo discourses, and undo the notions of purity that surround systems of belief. Whether it's the extreme and rather unoriginal example of a priest molesting a child, or the trivial case of a Jew using a phone on the sabbath, the reality is not cut and dried, it's a messy muddle full of complexities and compromises.

We are not dealing with seperate worlds, as becomes abundantly clear whenever a few precious moments of press coverage are devoted to moderates, or in the proofs we encounter in our own lives that actually, co-existence in diversity is not only possible, its incredibly enriching. But as well as that, its incredibly mundane. We all know Muslims who are completely "European" in cultural terms, or Christians who practice their faith without judging anyone else. These people exist, we all know them, it's incredibly banal and yet it's the only thing capable of exposing the nonsense of the debate monopolised by extremists. It's not a lie to show pictures of people draped in stars and stripes holding up anti-islamic placards in NYC, nor is it a lie to show a pastor saying he wants to burn a Koran (well, now you mention it...) Those people exist too, those events are actually happening (or not happening, as the case may be). But it's disinformation to the extent that it ignores the other realities, which are not only far, far more prevalent, but also far more useful in constructing a meaningful, nuanced debate. What we have instead is the battle of imaginary "worlds" and general hysteria on all sides. Which is wholly unneccesary. Many religious people are not fundamentalists and do not seek to impose their beliefs on others. Many secularists respect the important role religion has in the lives of many and are not stubbornly campaigning for its abolition. There is nothing mutually exclusive here. So why whould we be placed in opposition to one another?

The pope's visit, thus far, seems to have been the occasion for mud-slinging in all directions, with secularists being blunt and sometimes mocking in their dismissals of religion, and then Catholics - predictably - defending themselves, often by attacking the atheists in return. Not only is this disconnected from the reality, it is a serious missed opportunity, to have a calm and respectful discussion, either about the metaphysical dimensions of the existence of God, which is always a fun one, or the place of religion in European society in the face of declining religiosity yet increasing fundamentalism and religiously-based identities. Is that too boring or too subtle for people to hear? Or for journalists to write about? Apparently so. If entertainment is the only imperative, then perhaps this justifies limiting the "debate" to caricatures, which are arguably easier to process, and certainly necessitate less thought to grasp.

So now we have Richard Dawkins and the Pope representing two warring worlds. This is the conclusion I would come to if I were a lifeform from another planet, who mistakenly landed on earth and decided to pass the time by perusing the media in recent days. This being said, I do have some sympathy for Toynbee's statement that,

"All atheists now tend to be called "militant", yet we seek to silence none, to burn no books, to stop no masses or Friday prayers, impose no laws, asking only free choice over sex and death."

But of course it can't be true. If all atheists want is unlimited free choice then those who levy charges of relativism and amorality against them would be spot on. Of course atheists want laws. They advocate tolerance but even that must be restricted, because obviously not everything can be tolerated. But the point is, the "we" which Toynbee uses to generalise about all atheists is as absurd as the "we" appropriated by religious spokespeople in the name of all the faithful. Atheists are scattered across a spectrum of values, they are no more a monolithic bloc than any other kind of "imaginary community". But it's an almost irresistible shorthand, and one I am equally prone to making myself. I advocate the view that allowing a few to speak in the name of many is always dangerous, or at the very least problematic. Carving up the world into blocs denies the realities which are evidenced by our own experiences. But its a tricky predicament and I don't have the solution. I would just like to see the debate opened. The kind of debate where each speaks frankly to his/her convictions, and the mud is left at the door.

The shortcuts which lead us round in circles

By way of context: One of the privileges of an interning stint at the African Museum is the unlimited access it grants to a much mythologised place I have always been fascinated and enchanted by (even as I learned more about its rather sinister past and associations). Hopefully this, and the fact of having moved from a position of looking at culture to “doing” culture, should provide ample food for thought, with which to nourish and sustain this much neglected little blog, over the coming months.

It’s been 50 years since the Congo gained its independence from Belgium. A milestone the museum has decided to mark on a jubilant, celebratory note, with a series of exhibitions of the central one “Independence!”, is a cursory but colourful look back over those 50 years.

Visiting it however, left me with rather mixed feelings. Trying to put my finger on a way of articulating how I felt about it, I decided to search for inspiration by apprehending the reaction of the visitors who’d preceded me, by means of a leaf through the guestbook. Therein I found surprisingly strong words of indignation and outrage from a number of English speaking visitors. While I can’t recall the exact formulations, damning words like “truth”, “genocide”, “8 million dead”, “shameful”, and “atrocities” were some that stuck in my mind. My initial reaction, in defence of the expo, if not the museum, was that such harsh criticism was unfair, that such details did not strictly belong in an exhibition chronicling the independence of the Congo from just a few years prior to 1960 up until the present day. That these belonged elsewhere.

I did enjoy the abstract and artistic quality of the expo, which contained lots of artworks, poems, music, artefacts and references to cultural and social movements. The problem is, when it comes to delicate issues where questions of politics and moral responsibility are being deliberately kept at arm’s length, the line between what is benignly allegorical and what is insidiously euphemistic, becomes a tricky one to place.

And it’s certainly not that there is nothing to read in the expo. In fact the volume of text – contained largely in reproductions of newspaper articles from around 1960, as well as a great deal of detail about historical events leading up to independence – is somewhat overwhelming.

The main problem, as I identified it, is that there is very little in the way of concrete or coherent explanations of two key processes following independence.

Firstly, the process of “hollowing out” of the state after colonialism, the dynamics and logics (such as corruption, nepotism and clientelism) accounting for the extent of economic collapse in the years that followed, due to a systematised policy of extraction under Mobutu on such a scale that it has been described as “kleptocracy” – rule by thieves. It is illustrated with paintings and caricatures, where African politicians are portrayed as predatory animals, but the words explaining it in black and white are missing. The artworks are illustrations to a story that, if you don’t have it in mind already, the museum is not going to tell you, and as a result are essentially of artistic value rather than also being complements to a narrative elucidating history, which would have provided a far fuller explanation.

Secondly, another delicate issue ignored almost totally is the situation of considerable instability, violence and unrest currently affecting areas of the Congo. There is no attempt to give a coherent explanation of the roots of the ethnic tensions, which ties into the woes of a number of other countries such as Rwanda, and making the link would have been helpful, not to say important.

Both of these are serious missed opportunities. But not only that, leaving them out means that one leaves the expo feeling as if a crucial piece of the puzzle, or part of the story has been missed out. At the end of the expo we are faced with a series of testimonies from second generation Congolese immigrants living in Belgium, young adults who express their qualms or inability to “celebrate” the anniversary of independence in light of the ongoing misery in terms of poverty and conflict still plaguing the Congo. But the museum, with its colourful displays and collages of upbeat, celebratory headlines, has not explained to us why this is so. The dissonance, the incongruity is striking and irreconcilable, and as a result the expo just doesn’t quite make sense. The story it is trying to tell doesn’t hold up.

So why leave out a clear and neutral full description of historical events, containing the details needed to make sense of how the story ends? Maybe because someone with a degree of forethought worked out that to explain the mess the Congo is in today requires an explanation of the mess Mobutu made, which in turn requires an explanation of the logics of colonialism of which he was the inheritor. And this is where we get back to all that unfortunate genocide business.

Such is the nature of the postcolonial condition: it is pervasive, and no aspect of Congolese society, culture, or recent history can be meaningfully explained without reference to it. This is the intractable problem which this place just can’t seem to escape.

The Semantics of Jan Moir

I've recently been doing a lot of reading about Stereotypes, mainly as part of research for a presentation we had to give to a class of german schoolchildren. It's always a bit delicate dealing with Stereotypes, even when approaching it from a "scientific" or academic perspective. And I couldn't help but feel there was something a bit gratuitous about showing images depicting fat american tourists, lederhosen-clad beer-drinkers, or little slanty-eyed yellow people in pointy hats, even if it was all with the intention of pointing out how they appear in the various fora we looked up. The critical distinction between "using" and "mentioning" stereotypes is often tricky to pinpoint exactly, and sometimes either can leave a bad taste in the mouth.

Anyway, for the purposes of the presentation, we looked primarily at national stereotypes. But of course stereotypes don't stop at political geography, and I recently came across a beautiful illustration of another kind at work. According to Michael Pickering, possibly the most intractable and enduring stereotype about women centres around the madonna/whore dichotomy. The two impossibly unrealistic extremes are both given a nice reinforcing boost in this article, by the now notorious daily mail columnist Jan Moir (of course the only excuse for reading the Daily Mail is to read it like a sociologist, under the pretence of "phishing" for such perfect examples of discursive practices in action, and one seldom has to look very far).

So on the one hand we have the immaculately turned out perfect wives, who've never faltered in their lives, either in terms of their irreproachable behaviour or flawless appearance. They are the long-suffering mothers of the children, pure embodiments of goodness. And at the other end of the axis of female persona, we have the the cheap, classless, fame-hungry skanks, the inscrupulous home-wreckers and diabolical seductresses.

Moir then proceeds to drag her common thread through the lives of a series of celebrity couples, who all seem to fit this dichotomy, and makes her point by ramming the opposition down our throats over and over again, attributing to both breeds of women quite astonishing epithetes, free from any nuance or mitigating factors. Nowhere are Cheryl Cole's previous misdemeanous mentioned, such as the incident of violent assault. Here she is "a woman who millions regard as the nation’s sweetheart." Following a jaw-droppingly crude metaphore likening women to pieces of meat, she is the "prime organic" steak to the "battery hens" with whom Ashley Cole committed his numerous indiscretions. Continuing with the animal metaphore, they are "the kind of Premier League lemmings who would throw themselves off a cliff for the chance to be with a footballer."

Then there's "Princess Sandra", whose husband chose to consort with "the kind of girls whom you might expect to find raking the sawdust between acts at the circus" - whatever they look like. Tattooed, apparently.

And then there's the woman who inspired the whole article in the first place, Ronan Keating's recently revealed mistress, Francine who, "has none of Mrs Keating’s glacial beauty, nor her unmistakable air of a sophisticated, sorted woman. Instead, Francine is a faint echo of Yvonne. She is Yvonne-lite. She is the splash of cologne to Yvonne’s drop of eau du parfum."

Just to bring home her point one last time, Moir launches a final tirade of oppositions, directed at the "other women" frequented by the men in question - "almost without fail they appear to be a bargain-basement version of the wife left behind; the counterfeit alternative to the real thing, the Primark to her Prada, the pedalo to her magnificent, ocean-going yacht." Tellingly, now even the animal anaology has been dropped in favour of mere inanimate objects, or shopping and boat metaphores, to characterise these wretched characters.

For Moir it seems there are two kinds of women - the exemplary kind and the fallen kind. It is not clear how exactly one ends of up in either camp, perhaps some kind of genetic pre-disposition from birth. But there is only one kind of man - the kind that makes mistakes, and sometimes gets forgiven. The human kind.

3 Little Reviews

Marina and the diamonds

First heard her when she did a very simple version of "I am not a robot" on the Culture show. Just her and a keyboardist, I believe it was. A very minimalist sort of showcase for her and her voice, almost pretentiously so, it seemed to me at the time. I haven't found the exact performance online, but I suppose it was quite similar to this one, only with more make-up and minus the maraccas.

Maybe it was the make-up that put me off, or perhaps her stary eyes or bizarre gesticulations... in any case I was deeply unconvinced. Of course because the whole thing was so unusual and stuck in my mind, I went back to it some time later, and after several more listens, became slightly obsessed. It's definitely the voice, more specifically the way she switches from the gritty deep end to absolutely entrancingly beautiful high notes that sound quintessentially classical - like a soprano choirgirl/boy.

In the end I caved in and bought the album, but I still can't claim to be familiar with all of it. "Hollywood" is a song that makes her seem not so original after all, but then there's songs like Mowgli's Road, when she's back to her idiosyncratic, slightly disturbing form, in terms of everything - the video, voice and lyrics. And that character seems to run through most of everything else she's been putting out. She's not quite like Marmite, because I manage to love and sort of hate it at once, rather than veering towards one extreme or the other, and she's not quite like a "disturbing yet can't look away" car crash scenario either. If I could think of a metaphore for something that is at once exquisitely and classically beautiful and yet strangely surprising in an alarming sort of way, then I'd have nailed it.

Bat For Lashes

Bat for Lashes, like Marina and the Diamonds, and Florence and the Machine, is another one of those ambiguous "is it a band or is it just her?" specimens. And in all 3 cases, it's the latter. So Bat for Lashes aka Natasha Khan has much in common with Marina, they both have interesting heritage, make bizarre videos, and have voices that don't come around too often. I first heard Natasha singing "Use somebody" (which incidentally was the first time I heard that song sung by anyone). Although I have a great deal of time for Marina, I think she has a little way to go compared with Natasha. Marina's output is somewhat inconsistent in that you get something mind-altering like "I'm Not a Robot" and then you get blandness.com in the shape of "Hollywood". Much more hit and miss than Natasha, who's records - if the one I have is anything to go by, form coherent, intelligible wholes in which each element plays an essential constitutive part. What I love about the "Two Suns" album is that there is something that runs all the way through it, a thread, a theme - that seems also to have been present in her earlier stuff. Much of it appears to be in the realm of dreams, the surreal, and fairytales. But it is not just airy notions of clouds and castles in the sky, there are also nightmares. And songs like "Siren Song" especially testify to the presence of a threatening alter-ego, a sinister dark side and the constant risk of falling into the abyss.

I'm not gonna lie, a lot of the songs I haven't found to be nearly so accessible and it's still something I'm working on. But I must say, in these

days of autotune it's refreshing to hear voices which do not sound completely generic, and I so often end up adoring things that on a first listen absolutely appall me. It is useful to remember I suppose, that we are as much conditioned to appreciate a certain type of sound as we are to appreciate a certain kind of beauty and it's always worth trying to step out of that, to the extent that it's possible.

The XX

A band who've been on the circuit for a while, but I never claimed to be avant-garde. No such mixed reactions as with the two above, heard it on the radio and fell instantly under the mesmerising spell of the haunting, down-beat "Crystallised". Getting a bit more familiar with the band was initially dissapointing, as again - the rest of the stuff is less easily accessible as the songs which are picked up for radio-play... But the voice of the male singer, Olli, is one I could happily listen to all day even if he were singing the phonebook. Romy I have more difficulty with, she has a manner of speaking that comes across when she sings in a way that bothers me, but I'm learning to get past it, or at least learning to force myself to.

This is a band that, the more I learn about them, the more I appreciate them. Having watched the video for Crystallised, which is absolutely perfect, most of what I read makes perfect sense. The idea of childhood friends Romy and Olli exchanging lyrics over skype because it's "too personal" to bear doing it in person, is at once incredibly poignant and also something so typical of the internet age, in which everything becomes remote, and which of course has completely revolutionised the whole process of making music, and the music itself. The New Yorker reviewer who said that "These are songs to be sung inches from someone’s ear, preferably with the lights off" was spot on. They absolutely are. But they are also lyrics that seem to have been dragged out of their creators, the reluctant poets who cannot even look at each other when they are singing them, because it's just too close to the bone (the video for Crystallised for instance, has them all facing forwards looking rather dazed, in the shadows, while pictures of the sky are projected across their faces.

There's something anonymous and almost robotic about the delivery, yet when you're listening to it, it just drips with sentimentality and feeling. Because the arangements are so stripped-down however, there is nowhere to hide the lyrics, but cleverly they found a way of circumventing that problem by singing over each other, at the same time, something they explain here: There's something about that which has a wonderful stiff-upper lip quality that might just be unique to the Brits, a kind of typical English repressedness, whereby some things are just too emotionally-laden to say, at least with the lights on.