Books I've been reading

I'm 100% confident the Pinhead will enjoy this work a great deal more:

The title is taken from a badge his father received after he participated in the First World War.

Fisk is indeed very critical of the USA, but he's just as critical about almost all middle-Eastern regimes he writes about.
Many tales about the torture people suffered are absolutely terrible. It's also uncanny to see the names of towns we have come familiar with through international conflicts over the past decade pop up when older conflicts are being discussed. If even a tenth of what he writes is true, I think we should come to understand that these regions are home to people who have been deeply and understandably traumatized - often at the pace of at least once every generation.
I'm still ploughing through this volume - it's over 1200 pages long.

2 things that really caught my attention:

- Fisk tells of how the men who were to become 'the Taliban' actually grew up in concentration camps, usually situated at Peshawar just outside of the Afghan border into Pakistan. He paints a portrait of people who have grown up for roughly 16 years in camps that were completely void of all the artifacts of everyday life we are accustomed to. To Fisk' mind, the inspiration for the cultural revolution initiated by the Taliban was actually more the conditions in which these men lived the first years of their life than the Sharia as such. He also relates how Bin Laden was protected by the Afghan Taliban regime, but didn't really see things exactly the same way. He also mentions an multinational gas and oil firm which initiated negotiations with the Taliban some 6 months after they took power. On its payroll were a latter adviser to W. and Karsai, the current President of Afghanistan;

- Another interesting chapter concerns the war between Iraq and Iran. Fisk writes down a number of interesting issues but what struck me most was the dramatic difference in the psychology of both people. The Iraqis were deeply traumatized by the events, as we would expect from a people suffering war. But the Iranians, on the other hand, were enthusiastic martyrs who even sent very young kids totally 'ready' to die in the battle to their fronts. Two people with a single religious faith, but such a different psychological response to the events that befell them;

Andy wrote:The title is taken from a badge his father received after he participated in the First World War.

Hi Andy, good to see you again - not a badge, but a medal:

The Victory Medal, 1914-19



This medal was awarded to all those who entered a theatre of war. It follows that every recipient of the Victory Medal also qualified for the British War Medal, but not the other way round. For example if a soldier served in a garrison in India he would get the BWM but not the Victory Medal. In all, 300,000 fewer Victory Medals were required than British War Medals. All three services were eligible. It is not generally known that Victory Medals continued to be awarded after the Armistice, for the British forces who saw action in North Russia (up to October 12th, 1919) and Trans-Caspia (up to April 17th, 1919) also qualified.

The medal was struck in bronze. On the obverse is a full-length figure of Victory. On the reverse is the inscription "The Great War for Civilisation". There is no clasp, but a ring attachment through which the ribbon is passed. The official description of the colour of the ribbon is "two rainbows with red in the centre". An oak-leaf emblem was sanctioned for those who were mentioned in despatches.
5,725,000 Victory Medals were issued.

The soldier's regiment and number are inscribed around the rim.

from http://www.1914-1918.net/grandad/themedals.htm

RE: Fisk

First, regarding the notion 'cultural revolution', I'd say the blame is on my. You're reading an all in all hastily written summary of a non-native speaker about a voluminous work he's reading in a language that's not his native tongue. No doubt I will occasionally use terms in a way that is not 100% accurate.

As for Bin Laden & Saudi Arabia: Fisk tells the tale of how the CIA went looking for an Arab prince to lead a missions against the USSR after it invaded Afghanistan around Christmas 1979. In this search, they actively tried to appeal to the old romantic image or the Arab conqueror.
As you can image: none of these well-off spoiled brats was willing to hand in their luxury to soft sweet asses on Afghan turf against the Sovjets.

Bin Laden was outraged by this form of what he considered moral corruption and this anger made him initiate his first pseudo-military action - recruiting muhajedeen from various Middle-Eastern and African countries. This evolution let to a falling out between the Saudi regime and Bin Laden on the one hand, and - along with his investments in civil projects in countries like Sudan - helped to shape a very popular image of Bin Laden in the Middle-Eastern mindset.

Fisk speaks with great respect about the man Bin Laden, clearly thinking him a lot more intelligent than numerous other key figures he speaks about. All the while, he also underlines the monstrosity of the acts we know Bin Laden to be responsible for. This open and honest ambiguity make for an interesting read: of course we think of a very terrible person upon reading Bin Laden's very name. But that doesn't mean, of course, that he can't have been a very intelligent and even kind person just as well.

Now as to the difference between Taliban and Bin Laden: Fisk enters into some guessing here. He had last spoken to Bin Laden in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Bin Laden only spoke briefly about them, but with some ambiguity in the choice of his terms. I should look up the precise formulation, but in essence it comes down to 'I don't like some of the things they're doing, but I'll accept them for lack of a better alternative'. The mindset of the Taliban - extremely hostile against all worldly beauty -, if we are to believe Fisk, was quite different from that of a more cultivated radical Muslim such as Bin Laden.

pinhedz wrote:And on a completely different topic--I'm sure that Jacques Le Goff must have discussed "Roman de Fauvel" somewhere in his voluminous writings.
Have you run across any of his opinions of this great satirical music drama of the middle ages?

I bought these 2 books quite cheaply at the Gravensteen in Ghent when I was visiting there.
Ghent is a great city in many aspects, especially if the Middle Ages are of interest to you.
It clearly had its golden age some time before Antwerp become the metropole of the world - its odd to think it once was, but so it is -, so it was nice for me to be confronted with a more Roman architecture.

The two works weren't all that interesting to me to be honest - apparently I do know more about Medieval history than I usually think I do.
I read them on the metro to and from work and there most significant use to me lies in the bibliographies.

I know that Le Goff has written lots more. But the 'Roman de Fauvel', I don't remember having read about it.
It's something new to me all together.

A satirical drama does remind me of something I came across in The Name of the Rose, namely the Coena Cypriani - a work that inspires a wild dream making a mockery out of traditional Christian tale from Adso of Melk, the novels protagonist. I have been looking for a readable translation of this piece of condemned satire, but sadly even the internet isn't always all that you think it to be.

I've not heard much about it but the news made me wonder how is it that a silly movie (even if it's insulting) makes people so angry, with blood they say they'll defend their God and all of that, so many people in the arab world reacted in a similar way. It can't be they're all psychopaths and I couldn't imagine it's just their religion (in the worst way), as if they were all from the same big sect that doesn't let them think for themselves to see how grave it is

random ego of otro nombre wrote:I've not heard much about it but the news made me wonder how is it that a silly movie (even if it's insulting) makes people so angry, with blood they say they'll defend their God and all of that, so many people in the arab world reacted in a similar way. It can't be they're all psychopaths and I couldn't imagine it's just their religion (in the worst way), as if they were all from the same big sect that doesn't let them think for themselves to see how grave it is

I'd imagine that something like 99.9% of the world's population has NOT seen the 'offensive' movie (or youtube video, is it?) - and I'd imagine that percentage is a little higher in the muslim population. Though I understand that many of those 'outraged' by it do believe that it has been shown on US 'State Television' ...

The Book Thief by Marcus Zusak
The Slap by Christos Tsiolkas
The Echo by Minette Walters

Tristan is a bit of a hip and coming guy on the French philosophical scene.
He wrote a quite lengthy treatise on ontology called Objet et forme at the wee age of 31.

He has also written a number of novels, some of which have been rewarded with French decorations.
This is his debut novel, an evocation of the Parisian gay scene in the early days of the AIDS-epidemic.

To be fair, I've got 50 pages left to read and up till now the book didn't really do much to me.

pinhedz wrote:Banned in Poland in 1953--that's a recommendation.

Do you recommend it?

If you are interested in the influence of the Soviet Union - upon until Stalin - on middle and eastern Europe in particular - and its grasp on intellectual life in a more general sense -, I would indeed recommend it.
Milosz' tale is a balanced mix of personal experience and more distanced reflection by a capable thinker and writer.