“He declares himself guilty who justifies himself before accusation.” Thomas Fuller 1732
During the twilight of the First World War, the valleys of Eastern Anatolia, the Southern Caucasus and Upper Mesopotamia were drenched in blood. Turks, Armenians, Kurds and Russians, as well as the British Indian Army fought and killed regular soldiers, militias, warbands and civilians in the anarchy of The Great War. One of the most tragic elements of this foggy chapter in the war’s dark chronicle is the fate of the Armenians populace. The official line of the Turkish government is to call this the “Armenian Issue,” but most academics and laymen would just as easily use the more accurate term of genocide.
We hear the word “Genocide” and our thoughts go immediately to the mechanized horrors of Auchwitz or the primal savagery of Rwanda. These are uncontroversial horrors where offenders and victims are easily identified. The Armenian experience is a tad difference, as it has to be placed in the context of the Russian-Ottoman Wars.
As Russia expanded southwards through the 19th Century into Central Asia and the Caucasus, they expropriated large portions of the Muslim populations and settled ethnic Russians in their place. There are fewer Crimean Khans, Tatar Imams, or Muslim villages, except in isolated communities on Russia’s southern frontiers today, then called the region home in centuries past. When the Russians came into Anatolia from the Caucasus Mountains at the beginning of the war, many ethnic Armenian militias began to form, hoping to knock of the yoke of the Muslim Turks and exchange it for the independent yoke of Christian-Russian imperialism. The Ottoman government of the Young-Turks faction saw the rebellion and the presence of the Christian population as an existential threat to the Ottoman Empire, and they ordered the pacification of the area by means of what we today would call ethnic cleansing.
The population was put to the sword, the rifle, the cannon and the chain. Those that weren’t killed (the majority – for what that’s worth) were exported across the Syrian Desert, to the backwoods provinces of the empire, where they still have large populations in Syria, Lebanon and Israel.
All of this to say that the Armenian Genocide was different from the Holocaust, both in terms of Great Power supporters and of military armaments. It still happened, and attempts by the Turkish government to minimize the laborious accounts of thousands of historians as “an Armenian version of history,” ring false; an arrogant attempt to imply nationalist controversies where none exist.
France did a strange thing in 2007 and criminalized the act of denying the Armenian Genocide, the way they have with the Holocaust. It’s punishable with fines and potentially time in prison. If I claim that in 1492, Christopher Columbus fell of the edge of the world and died, then any educated person should accost this foolish assertion and belittle the opinion. If I voice it in a job-interview, it should go without saying that I’ll still be looking for employment at the end. The truth should be the only limiter on opinions. The opinion that the Armenian Genocide is a false propaganda myth created by the Armenian Diaspora to libel the Turks has been successfully disproved a hundred times over and it shouldn’t require the state to validate what reason has already justified.
What is it to France what happened in a foreign land almost a century prior? Does the government of France need an opinion of Assyrian/Babylonian relations? How do they feel of Burmese/Thai border wars in the Twelfth Century? This was a ludicrous policy, inspired by domestic pandering to the Armenian community. Ironically in Germany, where the Turkish constituency is more vocal than the Armenian one, they decided to leave the subject as a topic for historians and not lawmakers. Both governments are pandering to domestic pressures. The historical record has nothing to do with the matter.
Turkey retaliated against France by condemning what it called the “Cezayir Soykirimi – The Algerian Genocide” to commemorate French atrocities in North Africa. When the American House of Representatives voted to recognize the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish Grand National Assembly condemned the “Kizildere Soykirimi – The Redskin (presumably meaning First-Nation Groups) Genocide.” They extended this northwards when Canada followed the American lead.
It seems odd to point out that the Turkish line of “We didn’t do this, if we did it was because they were rebelling and deserved it and other countries did it too!” is hardly a vindication of international justice. Denouncing the French in Algeria is not a counter-thrust, but a legitimate gripe against the French record. Imperial Russia’s Southern Policy of ethnic cleansing was villainous. The genocide of the Indian Tribes of North America was indeed a crime against humanity. Mutual recrimination and name calling do not, under any circumstances, wash blood away.
There are lofty issues at play, such as national dignity and the quest for truth, but in reality the conflict is about land and money. Armenia wants both and Turkey wants to surrender neither. Acknowledging that a crime happened is all fine and good, but should there not be proper punishment and restitution handed out to restore the equilibrium of justice? This sounds fair to me. But that raises the issue of who is the victim and who is the offender.
The Ottoman Empire was the offender. The Young Turks government recruited prisoner battalions out of the jails of Constantinople and Smyrna, and then paired them with Kurdish tribes in order to terrorize and displace the Armenians. Many Armenians were killed, many fled to the Russian side of the front until 1917, and many more were deported to Syria Province. There were some that managed to flee in the direction of the advancing British Army as refugees and from there to establish themselves in countries outside of South-West Asia.
Armenia was a republic in the Soviet Union by 1921 and the Ottoman Empire was deposed and relegated to the dustbin of history by 1923. What had been the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1918 (the years of the genocide) was then divided into the Republic of Turkey, parts of the Soviet Union, the French mandated territories of Syria and Lebanon, the British mandated territories of Iraq and Palestine, and Italian and Greek concessions in the Aegean.
So the wronged party is the collectivity of the Armenian people, and the offender is the Ottoman Empire. The problem is that there no longer exists any Ottoman Empire (a problem for nobody, really) to pay compensation to the Armenians. The individuals and institutions who committed this crime are gone from this earth, so argument put forth by the Armenian community is that the Republic of Turkey bears the weight of guilt because the masters of this state, as with the Ottoman Empire, were and are of the Turkish race.
The Ottoman Empire was a wholly undemocratic institution. The government was not responsible to the will of the people, and the people cannot be held responsible for the acts of the government. No person can be held responsible for the sins of her ancestors and the idea of a race crime dragging guilt through generations like Cain in the Land of Nod is a slap in the face to liberal democratic ideals. The Turkish race owes the Armenian race nothing but a polite apology.
In 2007, a congress of Kurdish Kaymakams in Iraqi Kurdistan adopted a resolution to apologize for their part in the genocide. No dollars or land changed hands, due in large part to Kurdish control of neither.
As for the offended party, that is the Armenian people, not the Republic of Armenia, which is pursuing both restitution and concessions from the Republic of Turkey. Modern Armenia is a former Soviet Republic, mired in corruption, land-locked and involved in perennial fighting and feuding with neighboring Azerbaijan. They want concessions of vast swaths of Eastern Turkey to remake the ‘Wilsonian Armenia’ promised to them by Woodrow Wilson in his largely ignored fourteen points for a just peace after World War One. They also want a financial tithe from Turkey which does not appear to be forthcoming.
Upon earning its independence from the Soviet Union, the 141st largest country in the world (Smaller than Lesotho but larger than the Solomon Islands) ethnically purified itself to 97% ethnic Armenians, relegating Russians and Yazdi Kurds to single percentage populations; Turkic Azeris were forced as refugees into Turkey, Azerbaijan and Iran. Armenia is a habitual abuser of human rights, along the lines of most other former Soviet republics. The Republic of Armenia is cynically trying to use the leverage of the Armenian people in Diaspora to its own political gain in the mountainous politics of the Caucasus. This state crying for restitution in the name of justice and human rights rings as true as a used-car-salesman urging someone to patriotically buy American, hoping to cash in on someone else’s ideals.
The truth be told, Turkey must admit as to what happened a century ago on her soil. It alienates ethnic Armenians in Turkey. It criminalizes open discussion in her universities and censors academics. The only way Turkey will ever do that is if she knows full well that there can be no possible blow-back from a tiny eastern neighbor with delusions of grandeur.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Politics - Headscarves
Strangers in a Strange Land
The term “Islamic Head Dress” means different things to different people. It can vary from the full on Afghani-style Burka, to colourful headscarves, black veils or even masks. They all have different names, foreign words that get confused in the minds of speakers, and blotted together in a patchwork of cultural and religious traditions. France has recently opted to ban the fashion accessory, and this has aroused opinions on one side and the other. Generally speaking, it shouldn’t be too controversial to say that the state shouldn’t mandate dress codes in civil society. It should be equally unanimous to say that if someone is deliberately obscuring their face, it should raise some questions, especially if such a person walks into a bank, for example. The rational standing ground in a changeable and evolving society shouldn’t actually be that hard to find, all you have to do is ignore the shouting fools who either claim “Love it or leave it!” or “God says so!”
For those who say that the burka or niqab is mandatory by Islamic law, they’re not being entirely truthful. The Qur’an is vague on the issue, encouraging women to hide their ‘precious parts,’ remain modest and not to bring attention to themselves. In urban Saudi Arabia, this normally manifests as the long black coverings, scarves and veils that all women are forced into by law. In rural Arabia, the women wear colourful coverings under a thin black cloak and sometimes even masks that have a more carnival appearance. Among Kurds white headscarves are common, capping a colourful stalk of clothes. Earth-tones and burkas take prominence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Indonesia there are traditionally brightly coloured silks, though theses are changing to the black veils of Saudi due to the work of Wahabi missionaries and the growing influence of the Islamic Brotherhood. Somali women cover themselves with tribal-allied colourful clothes, as is common in Saharan Muslim populations like in Chad or Mali. There is no such thing as a uniform Qur’an-mandated dress code. The clothes worn by women in the West, that get called “Islamic Head Dresses,” are the fashions of home, mandated by class and culture.
Since for men there is no harm done by dressing one way or another, there’s no need for a law preventing men from wearing a dishdasha, a khafeya or a pair of low-riding shovar. Seeing a man walking around in the West, dressed up as an extra out of Laurence of Arabia is not a common sight. Even the Saudi ambassador to Canada wears a business suit. His wife, however, is clad in black. This is an important distinction: A man can make his own decisions about how to interact with society. A woman must observe the rules of Islamic society and the home. She is not capable of making such decisions. That’s why when laws targeting Islamic Dress are accused of singling out and targeting Muslim women, that’s correct. That’s what makes this a bit of a thorny issue. This is an issue wrestling society’s values against one half of one religious minority group.
I’ve travelled all over the Middle-East, and generally only worn Western-style clothes (trousers and shirts,) though I realise there are different standards of acceptability for men than for women. I have sympathy for strangers in this land who want to wear the clothes in which they feel comfortable. I felt like a pony-on-parade when I wore my dishdasha in the United Arab Emirates, and I imagine there are many people from that region who feel the same way in jeans-and-a-t-shirt. The general rule of thumb is that if no one is getting hurt, don’t worry about it. As Mark Twain noted: Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
There are three reasons why a woman would choose to cover. One, she believes that God will cast her into hell if she doesn’t. Two, she lives in a society where that is the norm. Three, her family pressures her to. The first two issues are the two most easily dealt with. If she honestly believes that there is an invisible man living in the sky who has nothing better to do that cast an eye down on her, constantly searching for wisp of hair or flash of skin, only then to meet out destructive, retributive and permanent punishment down upon her, there’s not much that can be done for her. The solution here is education. Starting at a young age, present the children with strong role-models (especially Muslim ones) who don’t cover. Convince girls not to want to cover later in life.
For those who lived in a society where this was the norm, they live there no longer. They are now dressing in a manner that fails extraordinarily in their mission to stay inconspicuous. They stand out. They draw attention. They are seen as visibly rejecting the society in which they now live. Most people have seen the sight of a Muslim man, dressed in western clothes being followed by his wife, covered from head-to-toe. This is a failure of Canadian culture to integrate these women into society. Under the veil of cultural-privilege, these women are isolated, lonely and at odds with the world. Immigrants will always be on the outside to a certain degree; home is where the heart is, and is usually where you grew up, the foods you ate, the music to which you sang and danced. This is as true for an immigrant from Bangladesh as it is for an immigrant from Kentucky. Public education of the children, into the norms of Canadian society is the answer. Segregated religious schools (Muslim, Jewish, Catholic) only serve to reinforce this segregation.
The third category, those pressured by family, extended family and society, the matter is graver. This is the type of issue that police have to intervene on, though proving coercion is a hard thing to do, especially when a minority group has certain hostility to outsiders. This is the never ending challenge of breaking up ghettoes. Community policing, passive observation by clinics and doctors for signs of abuse are both necessary to keep an eye on the sins that surround the issue of cultural isolation. Domestic violence, hidden by veiling, is a serious issue that should be treated with the strong arm of the law. Education, and infrastructure designed to bring economic opportunities to all are necessary. Affordable housing shouldn’t get clumped together in housing projects, but diffused over the city. Micro-communities (ethnic ghettoes) foster pressures, both active and passive, that need to be countered with education and opportunity, lest they stagnate and form a permanent underclass.
The head-scarf is more than just clothing. Islamic Head Dress is a flag, proclaiming various spiritual, cultural and political alignments. While I was teaching at the University of Nizwa, in Oman, the girls all wore head-coverings. The Bedouin wore masks and veils over their faces, while their urban classmates usually wrapped their heads in Calvin Klein-designed black headscarves. In class the masks and veils had to come off. They could cover their hair, but not their faces. The government wanted to keep their traditions, but also wanted society to reject the backward tribalism and medieval aspects of the rapidly modernising country. While I was teaching at Istanbul Bilgi University, in Turkey, it was originally against the law to wear any kind of head-covering whatsoever. Religious students circumvented this rule by wearing wigs or hats over their headscarves, either of which made them look like a top-heavy bobble-head doll. Then the law changed, then changed back, then reverted again, leading to (or because of) protests on campuses, on streets and in parliament. At the end of the legal two-step, headscarves were allowed and basically accepted by everyone, but face coverings were not. During exams, a couple of students with headscarves (who didn’t normally cover) were caught cheating by way of concealed earphones. Both Oman and Turkey recognize that cultural backwardness is something that their country needs to overcome, and the subjugation of women is an integral indicator of this. Islamic Head Coverings are not something to be protected.
To sum up, the state has no business enforcing dress codes. That being said, not all women who cover do so voluntarily. Enforcing a public apparel law on this subject would accomplish little more than keep covered women in the home and out of society. The covering of women is illiberal and undemocratic, but something that has to be tolerated among the population that is illiberal and undemocratic. Children have to be taught not only that those traditions are wrong, but why they’re wrong. The children can teach the parents, or if they fail to do so, the parents’ generation will die off in time. Like an anchor cut off from the ship, this symbol of third-world backwardness can disappear into the darkest depths of the sea, never to resurface.
The term “Islamic Head Dress” means different things to different people. It can vary from the full on Afghani-style Burka, to colourful headscarves, black veils or even masks. They all have different names, foreign words that get confused in the minds of speakers, and blotted together in a patchwork of cultural and religious traditions. France has recently opted to ban the fashion accessory, and this has aroused opinions on one side and the other. Generally speaking, it shouldn’t be too controversial to say that the state shouldn’t mandate dress codes in civil society. It should be equally unanimous to say that if someone is deliberately obscuring their face, it should raise some questions, especially if such a person walks into a bank, for example. The rational standing ground in a changeable and evolving society shouldn’t actually be that hard to find, all you have to do is ignore the shouting fools who either claim “Love it or leave it!” or “God says so!”
For those who say that the burka or niqab is mandatory by Islamic law, they’re not being entirely truthful. The Qur’an is vague on the issue, encouraging women to hide their ‘precious parts,’ remain modest and not to bring attention to themselves. In urban Saudi Arabia, this normally manifests as the long black coverings, scarves and veils that all women are forced into by law. In rural Arabia, the women wear colourful coverings under a thin black cloak and sometimes even masks that have a more carnival appearance. Among Kurds white headscarves are common, capping a colourful stalk of clothes. Earth-tones and burkas take prominence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Indonesia there are traditionally brightly coloured silks, though theses are changing to the black veils of Saudi due to the work of Wahabi missionaries and the growing influence of the Islamic Brotherhood. Somali women cover themselves with tribal-allied colourful clothes, as is common in Saharan Muslim populations like in Chad or Mali. There is no such thing as a uniform Qur’an-mandated dress code. The clothes worn by women in the West, that get called “Islamic Head Dresses,” are the fashions of home, mandated by class and culture.
Since for men there is no harm done by dressing one way or another, there’s no need for a law preventing men from wearing a dishdasha, a khafeya or a pair of low-riding shovar. Seeing a man walking around in the West, dressed up as an extra out of Laurence of Arabia is not a common sight. Even the Saudi ambassador to Canada wears a business suit. His wife, however, is clad in black. This is an important distinction: A man can make his own decisions about how to interact with society. A woman must observe the rules of Islamic society and the home. She is not capable of making such decisions. That’s why when laws targeting Islamic Dress are accused of singling out and targeting Muslim women, that’s correct. That’s what makes this a bit of a thorny issue. This is an issue wrestling society’s values against one half of one religious minority group.
I’ve travelled all over the Middle-East, and generally only worn Western-style clothes (trousers and shirts,) though I realise there are different standards of acceptability for men than for women. I have sympathy for strangers in this land who want to wear the clothes in which they feel comfortable. I felt like a pony-on-parade when I wore my dishdasha in the United Arab Emirates, and I imagine there are many people from that region who feel the same way in jeans-and-a-t-shirt. The general rule of thumb is that if no one is getting hurt, don’t worry about it. As Mark Twain noted: Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
There are three reasons why a woman would choose to cover. One, she believes that God will cast her into hell if she doesn’t. Two, she lives in a society where that is the norm. Three, her family pressures her to. The first two issues are the two most easily dealt with. If she honestly believes that there is an invisible man living in the sky who has nothing better to do that cast an eye down on her, constantly searching for wisp of hair or flash of skin, only then to meet out destructive, retributive and permanent punishment down upon her, there’s not much that can be done for her. The solution here is education. Starting at a young age, present the children with strong role-models (especially Muslim ones) who don’t cover. Convince girls not to want to cover later in life.
For those who lived in a society where this was the norm, they live there no longer. They are now dressing in a manner that fails extraordinarily in their mission to stay inconspicuous. They stand out. They draw attention. They are seen as visibly rejecting the society in which they now live. Most people have seen the sight of a Muslim man, dressed in western clothes being followed by his wife, covered from head-to-toe. This is a failure of Canadian culture to integrate these women into society. Under the veil of cultural-privilege, these women are isolated, lonely and at odds with the world. Immigrants will always be on the outside to a certain degree; home is where the heart is, and is usually where you grew up, the foods you ate, the music to which you sang and danced. This is as true for an immigrant from Bangladesh as it is for an immigrant from Kentucky. Public education of the children, into the norms of Canadian society is the answer. Segregated religious schools (Muslim, Jewish, Catholic) only serve to reinforce this segregation.
The third category, those pressured by family, extended family and society, the matter is graver. This is the type of issue that police have to intervene on, though proving coercion is a hard thing to do, especially when a minority group has certain hostility to outsiders. This is the never ending challenge of breaking up ghettoes. Community policing, passive observation by clinics and doctors for signs of abuse are both necessary to keep an eye on the sins that surround the issue of cultural isolation. Domestic violence, hidden by veiling, is a serious issue that should be treated with the strong arm of the law. Education, and infrastructure designed to bring economic opportunities to all are necessary. Affordable housing shouldn’t get clumped together in housing projects, but diffused over the city. Micro-communities (ethnic ghettoes) foster pressures, both active and passive, that need to be countered with education and opportunity, lest they stagnate and form a permanent underclass.
The head-scarf is more than just clothing. Islamic Head Dress is a flag, proclaiming various spiritual, cultural and political alignments. While I was teaching at the University of Nizwa, in Oman, the girls all wore head-coverings. The Bedouin wore masks and veils over their faces, while their urban classmates usually wrapped their heads in Calvin Klein-designed black headscarves. In class the masks and veils had to come off. They could cover their hair, but not their faces. The government wanted to keep their traditions, but also wanted society to reject the backward tribalism and medieval aspects of the rapidly modernising country. While I was teaching at Istanbul Bilgi University, in Turkey, it was originally against the law to wear any kind of head-covering whatsoever. Religious students circumvented this rule by wearing wigs or hats over their headscarves, either of which made them look like a top-heavy bobble-head doll. Then the law changed, then changed back, then reverted again, leading to (or because of) protests on campuses, on streets and in parliament. At the end of the legal two-step, headscarves were allowed and basically accepted by everyone, but face coverings were not. During exams, a couple of students with headscarves (who didn’t normally cover) were caught cheating by way of concealed earphones. Both Oman and Turkey recognize that cultural backwardness is something that their country needs to overcome, and the subjugation of women is an integral indicator of this. Islamic Head Coverings are not something to be protected.
To sum up, the state has no business enforcing dress codes. That being said, not all women who cover do so voluntarily. Enforcing a public apparel law on this subject would accomplish little more than keep covered women in the home and out of society. The covering of women is illiberal and undemocratic, but something that has to be tolerated among the population that is illiberal and undemocratic. Children have to be taught not only that those traditions are wrong, but why they’re wrong. The children can teach the parents, or if they fail to do so, the parents’ generation will die off in time. Like an anchor cut off from the ship, this symbol of third-world backwardness can disappear into the darkest depths of the sea, never to resurface.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Book Review - Road to Wigan Pier
The Road to Wigan Pier
By George Orwell
128 pages, 1937
My first taste of George Orwell came late in High School, in Grade 12, when I read his novella Animal Farm during class. The first period of the morning was a library period, I picked up the book and started reading it, then either skipped the rest of day’s classes or surreptitiously read the book on my desk rather than paying attention to the class’ subject. It was the first book that I read in a single day. It was also the first book that I re-read in its entirety. Orwell’s got a special place in the library of my heart.
I’ve since read and re-read many of his works, and works here is a better word than books because writing was for him work, not an artistic endeavour, even though it failed to earn him adequate recognition or wealth in his lifetime. Down and Out in Paris and London, Homage to Catalonia and The Road to Wigan Pier all fall into a category that has too much storytelling to be essays, too much reportage to be novels and too much philosophising to be journalism. Labelling his work into a category is a difficult task.
Labelling him into a category is a difficult task for that matter! He loved England and railed against Imperialism. He remained unpalatable to the right for his socialism and to the left for his anti-Stalinism. He was a man of modest education who believed in liberty and justice without illusions. He was writing at a time when most leftists would ignore the tales of horror coming out of Stalinist Russia, most rightists and liberals would accept Hitler and his cronies as fellow travellers in the greater struggle against communism and most patriots accepted the British Empire as something that was a glory to England. Orwell’s honesty was to see evil and call it such, regardless of alliances, associations or any ‘big-picture’ obfuscation.
His publisher, Victor Gollancz, suggested he go up to Lancaster, Barnsley and Sheffield and write about the condition of the coal miners there. This was with the intention of producing a book specifically for the “Left Book Club” that put Orwell on the landscape more than his previous book had, or his essays and journalism had. The first half of the book is observational labour-journalism. Orwell talks about the lives of the miners in Northern England. He talks about their jobs, their ailments, their finances, their families their housing and even bathing.
The first seven chapters of the book describe the futility and hopelessness of their lives: the daily grind, the diet, and above all money. Orwell would break down daily expenses, lodging, food, and whatnot in real pounds and shillings. He would compare that to the income made by the men for their single-income families, and leave no doubt that these people were permanently poor. The liberal lie that through hard-work, determination, brains and a strong work-ethic, anyone could pull themselves up by their bootstraps and flourish, was flayed as raw as the hands of a mineworker.
It’s important to remember that he’s writing, not about the itinerant tramps and unemployed travellers that he visited in Down and Out in Paris and London, but about the working poor; those who were lucky enough to have permanent jobs. The purpose of part one was to identify to the readers that a problem exists. There’s a serious problem on England’s shores, that needs addressing, and he gets this across with the combination of mercy and brutal honesty that would pull at the heart-strings of even the most reactionary Tory.
The final six chapters answer the question asked by the dilemma presented. How can people of conscience go about fixing the injustice that begins every time the sun’s morning rays touch England? His answer is socialism. Not the socialism of the young middle-class, idealistic for now but ready to be fatted on the benefits of liberal-capitalism for his later years. Nor the socialism of the Soviet Union, the mechanised incarnation of a feudal empire, raising darkness from the east the way J.R.R. Tolkien would later described Mordor.
Orwell’s socialism is the socialism of the now-defunct Independent Labour Party. Built on justice and liberty; capital ideas and ideologies that demanded the respect of anyone still loyal to their own conscience. My only criticism of his philosophy was that he believed that those two soldiers wore the same uniform in every fight. Justice is ambiguous and universal liberties often come at someone’s expense.
Eric Arthur Blair (Orwell’s birth-name, hidden for obvious reasons) espouses his thoughts as to why socialism was then and is now unpalatable in England. He explains the ongoing and seemingly permanent class-war that never seems to result in peace, only a vampiric truce. He discusses his own class status and biography, the hostility between his class and the proletariat, and the alienation of bourgeois socialists from the workers they claim to represent. Many of the final chapters are very relevant to today’s dialogue between the voting masses and the governing class.
Gollancz decided only to publish the first part of the book, the part described as observational labour-journalism. The observations were marketable, the political philosophy would do nothing but alienate the buying market. Orwell was furious when he hear about this, but by that time he was out of the country, soldiering alongside the forces of the Spanish Republic against a fascist coup that had broken out in 1936. Gollancz proved to be a better critic than publisher for his client, pointing out that Orwell fails to properly define what he meant by Socialism, also criticizing Orwell for his dismissal of pacifism and feminism as flash-in-the-pan counter-movements, and for placing too much emphasis on class-war. All of which were legitimate criticisms.
Orwell’s produced more neologisms than perhaps any other writer. Big Brother is watching you, Some animals are more equal than others, Thought Police, Newspeak and ironically Orwellian are lexis that (save the final) came from his pen. I suspect that he’d have probably taken deep offence at the term Orwellian, after dedicating so much to the cause of social democracy.
It’s always struck me as odd that his legacy gets claimed by those on the right. There’s a smug ‘I told you so’ attitude of displaying Orwell as a leftist who saw the light and called the Soviet Union evil, as though he had been a supporter prior to 1949 and the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four. That’s the final warning to any moral idealist. If you criticize any leftist movement from the left, or rightist movement from the right, that seeming contradiction will be held against your judgement and that of your cohorts. That argumentative reality prevents Liberals from speaking out against corruption in their own ranks, makes many Jews leery of criticizing Israel, stops Tories from criticizing police over-enthusiasm, and makes Muslims wary of airing their own dirty laundry. To stand on personal morals rather than group solidarity blunts the sword of your words. That’s Orwellian.
By George Orwell
128 pages, 1937
My first taste of George Orwell came late in High School, in Grade 12, when I read his novella Animal Farm during class. The first period of the morning was a library period, I picked up the book and started reading it, then either skipped the rest of day’s classes or surreptitiously read the book on my desk rather than paying attention to the class’ subject. It was the first book that I read in a single day. It was also the first book that I re-read in its entirety. Orwell’s got a special place in the library of my heart.
I’ve since read and re-read many of his works, and works here is a better word than books because writing was for him work, not an artistic endeavour, even though it failed to earn him adequate recognition or wealth in his lifetime. Down and Out in Paris and London, Homage to Catalonia and The Road to Wigan Pier all fall into a category that has too much storytelling to be essays, too much reportage to be novels and too much philosophising to be journalism. Labelling his work into a category is a difficult task.
Labelling him into a category is a difficult task for that matter! He loved England and railed against Imperialism. He remained unpalatable to the right for his socialism and to the left for his anti-Stalinism. He was a man of modest education who believed in liberty and justice without illusions. He was writing at a time when most leftists would ignore the tales of horror coming out of Stalinist Russia, most rightists and liberals would accept Hitler and his cronies as fellow travellers in the greater struggle against communism and most patriots accepted the British Empire as something that was a glory to England. Orwell’s honesty was to see evil and call it such, regardless of alliances, associations or any ‘big-picture’ obfuscation.
His publisher, Victor Gollancz, suggested he go up to Lancaster, Barnsley and Sheffield and write about the condition of the coal miners there. This was with the intention of producing a book specifically for the “Left Book Club” that put Orwell on the landscape more than his previous book had, or his essays and journalism had. The first half of the book is observational labour-journalism. Orwell talks about the lives of the miners in Northern England. He talks about their jobs, their ailments, their finances, their families their housing and even bathing.
The first seven chapters of the book describe the futility and hopelessness of their lives: the daily grind, the diet, and above all money. Orwell would break down daily expenses, lodging, food, and whatnot in real pounds and shillings. He would compare that to the income made by the men for their single-income families, and leave no doubt that these people were permanently poor. The liberal lie that through hard-work, determination, brains and a strong work-ethic, anyone could pull themselves up by their bootstraps and flourish, was flayed as raw as the hands of a mineworker.
It’s important to remember that he’s writing, not about the itinerant tramps and unemployed travellers that he visited in Down and Out in Paris and London, but about the working poor; those who were lucky enough to have permanent jobs. The purpose of part one was to identify to the readers that a problem exists. There’s a serious problem on England’s shores, that needs addressing, and he gets this across with the combination of mercy and brutal honesty that would pull at the heart-strings of even the most reactionary Tory.
The final six chapters answer the question asked by the dilemma presented. How can people of conscience go about fixing the injustice that begins every time the sun’s morning rays touch England? His answer is socialism. Not the socialism of the young middle-class, idealistic for now but ready to be fatted on the benefits of liberal-capitalism for his later years. Nor the socialism of the Soviet Union, the mechanised incarnation of a feudal empire, raising darkness from the east the way J.R.R. Tolkien would later described Mordor.
Orwell’s socialism is the socialism of the now-defunct Independent Labour Party. Built on justice and liberty; capital ideas and ideologies that demanded the respect of anyone still loyal to their own conscience. My only criticism of his philosophy was that he believed that those two soldiers wore the same uniform in every fight. Justice is ambiguous and universal liberties often come at someone’s expense.
Eric Arthur Blair (Orwell’s birth-name, hidden for obvious reasons) espouses his thoughts as to why socialism was then and is now unpalatable in England. He explains the ongoing and seemingly permanent class-war that never seems to result in peace, only a vampiric truce. He discusses his own class status and biography, the hostility between his class and the proletariat, and the alienation of bourgeois socialists from the workers they claim to represent. Many of the final chapters are very relevant to today’s dialogue between the voting masses and the governing class.
Gollancz decided only to publish the first part of the book, the part described as observational labour-journalism. The observations were marketable, the political philosophy would do nothing but alienate the buying market. Orwell was furious when he hear about this, but by that time he was out of the country, soldiering alongside the forces of the Spanish Republic against a fascist coup that had broken out in 1936. Gollancz proved to be a better critic than publisher for his client, pointing out that Orwell fails to properly define what he meant by Socialism, also criticizing Orwell for his dismissal of pacifism and feminism as flash-in-the-pan counter-movements, and for placing too much emphasis on class-war. All of which were legitimate criticisms.
Orwell’s produced more neologisms than perhaps any other writer. Big Brother is watching you, Some animals are more equal than others, Thought Police, Newspeak and ironically Orwellian are lexis that (save the final) came from his pen. I suspect that he’d have probably taken deep offence at the term Orwellian, after dedicating so much to the cause of social democracy.
It’s always struck me as odd that his legacy gets claimed by those on the right. There’s a smug ‘I told you so’ attitude of displaying Orwell as a leftist who saw the light and called the Soviet Union evil, as though he had been a supporter prior to 1949 and the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four. That’s the final warning to any moral idealist. If you criticize any leftist movement from the left, or rightist movement from the right, that seeming contradiction will be held against your judgement and that of your cohorts. That argumentative reality prevents Liberals from speaking out against corruption in their own ranks, makes many Jews leery of criticizing Israel, stops Tories from criticizing police over-enthusiasm, and makes Muslims wary of airing their own dirty laundry. To stand on personal morals rather than group solidarity blunts the sword of your words. That’s Orwellian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)