An labhróidh Washington le Tehran? An labhróidh Tehran le Tel Aviv?

An labhróidh Washington le Tehran? An labhróidh Tehran le Tel Aviv?

Ní chloistear mórán faoi choimhlint i bPailistín faoi láthair. Tá an olltoghchán Iosraelach faoi lánseol, ach cé go mba sin ceann de na cúiseanna chun an cogadh a fhearadh, ní dhealraíonn sé anois go raibh an beartas sin rathúil. Sular sheol siad na trúpaí chun Gaza, dúirt rialtas na hIosraele go raibh sé mar aihm acu, Hamas a scriosadh agus a chur as feidhm. Ach tar éis níos mó na 1330 daoine maraithe agus 5450 gortaithe, tá Hamas fós ann agus, de réir cosúlachta, ag bailiú nirt.
Tá muintir an domhain ag feidheamh le ráiteas Obama faoin gcogadh sa Mheán Oirthear. Shílfeá go mbeadh dearacadh agus straitéis eile aige chun dul i ngleic le coimhlint den chineál sin. Go deimhin, ba chomhartha maith é cinneadh Obama George Mitchel a sheoladh don réigiún. Ar a laghad, tá taithí chuimsitheach faighte aige ón gcloimhlint i d’Tuisceart na hÉireann. Tá sé tharr am anois don Teach Bán ról níos pragmataí a ghlacadh sa Mheán Oirthear. Anois agus na Stáit Aontaithe ag ullmhú a dtrupaí a tharraingt as an Iaráic, tá comharthaí ann go bhfuil an cúlra geopholaitiúil ag athrú sa réigiún. Tá an Iaráin ag oscailt an dorais do dhioscúrsa leis na Stáit Aonaithe , comhartha eile go bhfuil teacht i láthair Obama ag spreagadh athrú intinne sa Phoblacht Ioslamach. Má labhraíonn Washington le Tehran, d’fhéadfadh sé an seanchaidhreamh a bhí idir an dá tir roimh an réabhlóid ioslamach i 1979 a athbunú.
O bunaíodh Poblacht Ioslamach na Iaráine i 1979, bhí drogall ar rialtais na Stát Aontaithe taidhleoireacht shaoithínteach a chur i bhfeidhm le rialtas na hIaráine. Ach nuair a tháinig an Ayatollah Khoméini i gcumhacht san Iaráin i 1979, bhí sé brea sásta dul i ndáil chomhairle le hIosrael. Bhí gá do Therhan margadh a dhéanamh le hIosrael chun gunnaí a cheannach. Bhí a fhios ag Iaráin go mbeadh sé usáideach dóibh a bheith cairdiúil le Iosrael dá bharr. Ach céard faoi ráiteas d’Athmadinijad cúplá bliain ó shin go raibh sé ar intinn aige Iosrael a scriosadh? Chuala mé taidhleoir Iaráineach sa Radio na Fraince an tseachtain seo caite agus é a ag maíomh nár aistríodh na focail an uachtaráin go ceart. Bhí sé a rá, dar leis, go mba choir go scriosfaí an sionachas. Bheul, b’fheidir go raibh mícheart againne. Ach ta rud amháin soléir anois: má fheicfimid rapprochement idir na Stáit Aontaithe agus an Iaráin, ta sé dealraitheach go laghdóidh sé sin an brú faoi Iosrael deireadh a chur ar a dhaorsmacht faoi mhuintir na Pailistíne. I ndeireadh an lae, is muintir bhocht iad na Pailistínigh agus is beag an meas atá ag na rialtais arabacha eile sa réigúin ar chearta daonna a gcomharsana

Sarko's sober sermon

On Thursday January 5th the French president Nicolas Sarkozy participated in a televised debate to discuss his new rescue package for the French economy. The financial plan comprising 1.4 billion euro will be used to re-finance the banks. The president also intends to invest in infrastructure and social projects. In order to save France’s disappearing automobile industry, professional tax will be cut from 2010. Since the financial crisis struck last year, France’s chief car manufacturers have hit an all-time production slump, with Renault, Citroen and Peugeot all closing factories. Outsourcing of manufacture to poorer countries such as Roumania and the Czech Republic has led to a serious rise in French unemployment. Sarkozy hopes that the removal of corporation tax will remedy this problem. Watching the debate, one got the impression that this was a man feeling the pressure. 

In spite of the democratic appearance of such a public debate with the president, his interrogation by three regular French news readers was far from rigorous. The general strike which has brought Guadaloupe to a standstill over the past few weeks was not even broached, and what about his famous ‘plan banlieu’, the ambitious development plan for France’s troubled suburbs? Nothing.
The only independent journalist who was allowed to question Sarkozy was the conservative Alain Duhamel, who has recently written a book called La Marche Consulaire ( The Consular March) comparing Sarkozy to Napoleon and the current financial crisis to the aftermath of the battle of Waterloo! The president managed to evade the vexed question of French purchasing power, which is considerably weaker than that of Germany. French teachers are among the lowest paid in the Euro Zone.
When it came to the question of Europe, Sarkozy referred to Ireland twice. However, this time there was no mention of the no- vote on The Lisbon Treaty. Instead, Ireland was mentioned as one of the worst cases of the financial capitalist catastrophe! Needless to say, the United Kingdom was also criticised for its role in the sub-prime mortgage scandal. It would be easy to forget, considering the ebullience of Sarkozy’s recent anti-capitalist rhetoric that this was the man who proposed to introduce the so-called ‘Anglo-Saxon’ model into French society during his 2007 election campaign. His slogan then was ‘travailler plus pour gagner plus’ - ‘ work more to earn more’. The thirty-five hour limit on the working week was to be reformed so that people could be encouraged to work themselves to death! Mr Sarkozy also expresses a considerable antipathy for rogue traders, in spite of the fact that one of his many recent constitutional reforms proposed the suspension of custodial sentences for financial misdemeanours.

 The French president has a rather idiosyncratic way of speaking. He frequently follows a statement with the question ‘pourquoi’-why, before proceeding to hammer home the answer. He also makes extensive use of repetition.  According to a recent survey, only 37 percent of the French population are happy with the performance of the French president, with over 60 percent expressing serious discontent. Nicolas Sarkozy showed remarkable dexterity in answering a range of highly predictable questions with platitudes and rhetorical flourishes. But, the real debate is heating up outside the Elysée Palace, and as the general strike on the 29th of January showed, French workers are becoming increasingly hostile to a Sarkozy’s relaunch of a bankrupt system.

On the importance of Scythian discourse.

From his home in near the Black Sea, a young man named Anacharsis made his way to Athens in the early 6th century BCE. At that time Athens was the centre of the civilised world, a metropolis teeming with innovative politicians, philosophers, poets and artists. Anacharsis was a Scythian, a culture which most Athenians would have considered to be the epitome of barbarity. The ancient historian Herodotus, for example, describes their dipsomania, and how they rode horses bare-back and apparently smoked a form of marijuana! For the Greeks, the Scythians were decidedly inferior. Incidently, various accounts of Ancient Ireland derive the Latin word for Irish scottus from Scythia, claiming that this Indo-European tribe came to Ireland via Egypt, Spain and finally the Atlantic coast. This mytho-historical origin from such reputed barbarians was used by the English renaissance poet Edmund Spenser , who lived in Cork, to justify English rule in Ireland.

In spite of the fact that his mother was Greek and he was raised bilingual, Anacharsis was not readily accepted in his new land. When he arrived in Greece he is said to have visited the home of the illustrious Solon the archon, or ruler. Solon was also a philosopher and renowned poet and it is probably for this reason that the intellectual Anacharsis decided to make his acquaintance. When he arrived at the home of the Greek archon , Solon asked him the purpose of his visit. Anacharsis replied “ I have travelled here from afar to make you my friend”. Solon was not interested and retorted “ it is better to make friends at home”. Anacharsis’s riposte was pungent “ Therefore it is necessary for you, being at home, to make friends with me”. Solon was deeply impressed by the sagacity and wit of his interlocutor and decided to offer him the traditional Greek hospitality. The idea of hospitality plays a central role in Ancient Greek culture. They called it xenophilia, literally love of the stranger. This was also a feature of Gaelic culture. The brú or hostel provided food and raiment for the passing traveller and was a common feature of the ancient Irish countryside.

Anacharsis’ was noted for the frankness of his speech. This irreverent directness became known as Scythian discourse. His outspokenness and love of knowledge made him popular among the Greeks. He was the first metoi or foreigner to be made a Greek citizen and the first foreigner to be inititiated into the Eleusianian mysteries, the equivalent of becoming a member of Aos Dána in Ireland or the Academie Francaise in France, I suppose. He is said to have written a book comparing the laws of the Greeks to those of the Scythians. His comparison of laws to spiders’ webs, which catch the little flies but let wasps and hornets escape has not lost its relevance today. The Scythian sage exhorted moderation in all things. Coming from a binge drinking culture, he had seen the effects of over-indulgent bibulosity. He couldn’t quite understand why the Greeks starting their drinking sessions with small jars and when they were drunk, finished them with big ones! He described the vine as containing three clusters of grapes: the first pleasure, the second drunkenness and the third disgust! When he was asked to describe the safest ship, he replied “ the one brought into harbour”. He was once reproached for his Scythian origins and his reply is one which any foreigner whose nationality is criticised should remember. He said “well, my country is a disgrace to me, but you are a disgrace to your country!”

Anacharsis represents for me the model foreigner. He came to Greece to learn from them yet, on the contrary, he was not averse to teaching the Greeks a lesson or two. What he perceived as progressive in Greek culture, he attempted to introduce in his own country, though this eventually cost him his life! Nevertheless, the very phrase Scythian speech is what the encounter with other cultures is all about. He openly expressed what he felt about his new adopted country. Perhaps in this sense Scythian discourse is what Meto Eireann tries to promote. In providing a forum for the immigrant, the outsider, the foreigner to openly express their views on Ireland, we are followers of Anacharsis or proverbially Scythian Speakers.

A religious curtin is spreading over Europe

Since the reign of Frederick the Great in the 18th century, Berlin has held the reputation at a city of tolerance and enlightenment. When Hitler rose to power in the 1930s, Berlin counted among the German states least in favour of the despot’s accession. In fact, if it hadn’t been for the vote of the Catholic Party, the Nazis might have been consigned to the dustbin of history. For the Prussians were opposed to all forms of fanaticism. Unlike Ireland the separation of Church and State is a sine qua non for the Germans, and in particular the Berliners. However, it now looks as though the light of reason could be coming under threat from the murky forces of ignorance and superstition. A highly organised group of religious fanatics called Pro-Reli have been campaigning indefatigably over the past year to have segregated religious education introduced in Berlin’s state-run schools. In 2007, the Berlin government introduced ethics as a compulsory subject for all secondary students from 7th grade onwards. The subject covers questions dealing with moral, cultural, political, religious and philosophical issues. The aim of the course is to furnish students with the capacity to think for themselves, as the ability to reason is a prerequisite for a fully functioning, pluralist and democratic society. The Pro-Reli campaign has now secured enough signatures to its petition to force a referendum on this issue.
The Pro-Reli phenomenon is yet another indicator of the intransigence and growing power of religion in secular societies. This religious recrudescence would seem to contradict Europe’s claim that it has evolved to a fully secular civilisation. The problem becomes deeply complex when one considers the heterogeneity of this religious resurgence. While the Christian churches have happily been on the verge of distinction in France, Britain, Germany and Ireland-though to a lesser extent -other religious groups are on the march. Islam, for example, is alive and well and is rapidly spreading throughout Europe. Muslims are no threat to European civilisation, provided, or course, they do not insist on infringing our impeding our secular institutions. The problem with Islam for the most part is its refusal to accept a secular society. Turkey is perhaps one of the few exceptions in the Islamic world of a country with a modern, secular constitution. Yet Turkey’s secularists are also fighting a kulturkampf( a cultural struggle) with rising Islamism. Berlin’s religious front is quite heterogeneous with Christians, Jews and Muslims all insisting that their children’s rational capacities be neglected in favour of mythological indoctrination. By living their lives according to the dictates of the relatively ignorant authors of the scriptures, they will, miraculously no doubt, become better citizens.
In a tolerant society one should allow freedom of religion. It should be tolerated in the same way we tolerate pornography, gambling and excessive drinking; they are not so harmful provided they are kept under control. But one should not allow religion to dominate civil society. If the Pro-Reli group have their way, a new generation of Berliners incapable of thinking for themselves will be the result. This religious indoctrination could have disastrous consequences for cultural integration. It is not surprising the three dominant religions of Europe, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all blossomed in the deserts of the Middle East. It is because the desert is the easiest place to forget about the world! These elaborate narratives are the three great sources of ignorance, intolerance and tyranny in Europe’s history. In short, they are the three great frauds of humanity. The problem for atheists, agnostics and free-thinkers is that they are not organised in groups like the churches. Ergo they do not make enough noise. The religionists, on the other hand, are vociferous and highly organised. They push pamphlets and propaganda newspapers through our doors, and in countries such as Ireland where philosophy is a foreign word to most, they infiltrate the media through their lay spokespersons. I don’t need to mention who they are. You’ve all ready heard, seen and probably even read them. Ireland’s obsequious mentality, nurtured by centuries of Catholicism, means that a regression towards religious education in Berlin is likely to be used by right-wing religionists in Ireland to promote the continuous role of the church in our out-dated education system. If the religionists have their way in Berlin, it will be a triumph for irrational right-wing politics and a disaster for any functional multiculturalism.The very fact that Berlin of all cities is actually having this debate is another sign that a counter-enlightenment movement is gathering ground in Europe. Champions of multiculturalism, tolerance and reason, be vigilant and be heard!

A religious curtin is spreading over Europe

Berlin has held long held the reputation as a city of tolerance and enlightenment. When Hitler rose to power in the 1930s, Berlin counted among the German states least in favour of the despot’s accession. In fact, if it hadn’t been for the vote of the Catholic Party, the Nazis might have been consigned to the dustbin of history. For the Prussians were opposed to all forms of fanaticism. Unlike Ireland the separation of Church and State is a sine qua non for the Germans, and in particular the Berliners. However, it now looks as though the light of reason could be coming under threat from the murky forces of ignorance and superstition.

A highly organised group of religious fanatics called Pro-Reli have been campaigning indefatigably over the past year to have segregated religious education introduced in Berlin’s state-run schools. In 2007, the Berlin government introduced ethics as a compulsory subject for all secondary students from 7th grade onwards. The subject covers questions dealing with moral, cultural, political, religious and philosophical issues. The aim of the course is to furnish students with the capacity to think for themselves, as the ability to reason is a prerequisite for a fully functioning, pluralist and democratic society. The Pro-Reli campaign has now secured enough signatures to its petition to force a referendum on this issue.

The Pro-Reli phenomenon is yet another indicator of the intransigence and growing power of religion in secular societies. This religious recrudescence would seem to contradict Europe’s claim that it has evolved to a fully secular civilisation. The problem becomes deeply complex when one considers the heterogeneity of this religious resurgence. While the Christian churches have happily been on the verge of distinction in France, Britain, Germany and Ireland-though to a lesser extent -other religious groups are on the march. Islam, for example, is alive and well and is rapidly spreading throughout Europe. Muslims are no threat to European civilisation, provided, or course, they do not insist on infringing our impeding our secular institutions. The problem with Islam for the most part is its refusal to accept a secular society. Turkey is perhaps one of the few exceptions in the Islamic world of a country with a modern, secular constitution. Yet Turkey’s secularists are also fighting a kulturkampf( a cultural struggle) with rising Islamism. Berlin’s religious front is quite heterogeneous with Christians, Jews and Muslims all insisting that their children’s rational capacities be neglected in favour of mythological indoctrination. By living their lives according to the dictates of the relatively ignorant authors of the scriptures, they will, miraculously no doubt, become better citizens. But lugubrious portents of Europe's intellectual decline abound. Germany is a case in point. CSU leader Edmund Stoiber has already called for tougher measures against blasphemy. see.http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,422107,00.html

Finland has also recently enacted blasphemy legislation.

In a tolerant society one should allow freedom of religion. It should be tolerated in the same way we tolerate pornography, gambling and excessive drinking; they are not so harmful provided they are kept under control. But one should not allow religion to become central to civil society. If the Pro-Reli group have their way, a new generation of regligiously indoctrinated Berliners incapable of thinking for themselves will be the result. This religious indoctrination could have disastrous consequences for cultural integration. It is not surprising the three dominant religions of Europe, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all blossomed in the deserts of the Middle East. It is because the desert is the easiest place to forget about the world! These elaborate narratives are the three great sources of ignorance, intolerance and tyranny in Europe’s history. In short, they are the three great frauds of humanity. The problem for atheists, agnostics and free-thinkers is that they are not organised in groups like the churches. Ergo they do not make enough noise. The religionists, on the other hand, are vociferous and highly organised. They push pamphlets and propaganda newspapers through our doors, and in countries such as Ireland where philosophy is a foreign word to most, they infiltrate the media through their lay spokespersons. I don’t need to mention who they are. You’ve all ready heard, seen and probably even read them.

Ireland’s obsequiousness, its 'herd mentality' ,( to borrow a phrase from Nietzsche) nurtured by centuries of Catholicism, means that a regression towards religious education in Berlin is likely to be used by right-wing religionists in Ireland to promote the continuous role of the church in our out-dated education system. If the religionists have their way in Berlin, it will be a triumph for irrational right-wing politics and a disaster for any functional multiculturalism.The very fact that Berlin of all cities is actually having this debate is another sign that a counter-enlightenment movement is gathering ground in Europe. Champions of multiculturalism, tolerance and reason, be vigilant and be heard!

Entre les murs: a French film exploring the problems of multicultural education

The question of education is central to the current debate concerning multicultural societies. How can the state provide effective schooling to societies composed of so many cultures and languages. There are over 120 languages currently spoken in Irish schools, and many educational institutions have manifested significant difficulty integrating such a diverse range of immigrants. Many children entering Irish schools spend their first formative years speaking languages other than English or Irish. Thus, they are put at a considerable disadvantage when they enter school, having to learn all their subjects through a foreign language. But Ireland’s late arrival to the multicultural world gives it the advantage of learning from other countries, whose multiculturalism is now in its second or third generation. It is in this context that Laurent Cantet’s new film Entre les murs adapted from a novel by Francois Bégaudeau should be of particular interest in Ireland. Cantet’s film is filmed in a school in the 20th district of Paris, and documents the progress of a multicultural class during the school year. Francois is a teacher of French literature, whose job is to impart the finer points of French culture to a motley class of students of varying cultural, national and intellectual backgrounds. The film was shot in an actual school and Cantet uses real pupils for his lead actors. Winner of the Palme d’Or in Cannes this year, Entre les murs has animated vigorous debate since its release in France a few weeks ago, perhaps more due to the pertinent questions it raises concerning the French education system than the magnificence of its cinematography. Cantet’s cinematic style in this film contrasts with some of his more subjective previous films. Entre le murs attempts to take the temperature of a modern French school; in other words, the camera simply observes events as they pass creating an impression of cold objectivity. This documentary form of film-making draws the viewer into the virtual world of the modern school, a world which is in very much a replica or microcosm of modern societies, with its own rules and regulations. During the school year Francois is confronted by a myriad of problems; many of his students come from poor immigrant families, whose parents don’t speak French. These are the children of the infamous ‘banlieux’, the suburban youth, the forgotten of French society. The film has many poignant moments subtly suggestive of a deeper, though understated philosophical problematic. Francois’s attempt to explain the use of the imperfect subjunctive tense to a class whose perplexity borders on downright anger is, despite its comic aspects, indicative of the gulf that divides official France from many its citizens. The imperfect subjunctive tense is never used in French speech; it is a purely formal, written grammatical construction, often used in high French literature. Yet one gets the impression that the director is using this example to serve as a metaphor for the contradictions of French society, and one gets the impression throughout the film that there is a conflict between two dimensions of expression or meta-languages, that of the teachers on the one hand and the meta-language of the students on the other. Francois’s informal dialectical method of teaching his students, in which he invites them to express their opinions, enabling them to clarify their own ideas, is a modern form of the Socratic method called maieutics, that which gives birth to ideas. However, this dialectical and perhaps more democratic form of teaching does not always succeed. Suleiman is a disruptive student from a poor African family who don’t speak French. His confrontation with the school authorities and eventual expulsion is particularly poignant. As his mother only speaks an African language, Suleiman has to translate for her in front of the school board. His perfect bilingualism, a sign of considerable intellectual ability, seems to go unnoticed by the school authorities debating whether or not to expel him from the school. The inflexibility of the school’s regulations, their obdurate refusal to take his difficult familial circumstances into consideration despite the impassioned plea of his mother, is a moving example of how the education system often fails its students. Entre les murs is the French expression meaning ‘ between the walls’, a title suggestive of what happens within the world of the modern multicultural school but also perhaps, of how certain individuals can fall through the cracks between the walls of the education system. It will be in selected Irish cinemas soon. Anyone interested in the philosophy of education in a multicultural context should make an effort to see this film.

The idiom of the capitalist world

Since its humble origins in the forests of Saxony, Denmark and Sweden, this Anglo-Saxon dialect of the Germanic family, the English language, has become the most widely spoken tongue on the planet. As Professor David Crystal has noted, never in the history of mankind has their been one language spoken by so many. There have been various theories regarding the planetary prepotence of English, many of which are obvious : the industrial revolution emanating mainly from Britain, the British Empire and the global dissemination of American popular culture after the second world war. Yet the ascendancy of English has had its dissidents. Anthropologists and cultural ecologists have warned of the dangers presented by global homogenisation generated by an Anglophone hypercapitalism spiralling out of control. America’s current economic crisis has led many to perpend the future of this capitalist social model. Is this really the only way in which a society can function in this technological century ? There can be no doubt about the overwhelming movitation in learning English : money. It is for this reason that the dollar is the most important word in the English language. Yet there is a striking irony here. If one were to teach a class of top executives today by making use of an article from any Anglophone newspaper, one would propably have to teach the following vocabulary : meltdown, disaster, bailout, hedge funds,bankruptcy, cash, outsourcing, unemployment etc etc. These words are already joining the myriad others who have taken their place in foreign languages. English as an international phenomenon is in inextricably tied up with the global capitalist system ; it is, in fact, the very language of capitalism. Yet there is a sense that perhaps that the language, learned for the most part, on the basis of business, is itself becoming bankrupt , or rather the civilisation that formed the cradle of the language is in terminal decline.

When the Roman’s conquered Greece in 180 BCE, they took Greek teachers with them back to Rome. Why ? The Roman’s realised that, although their military and engineering superiority was beyond question, they nevertheless lacked cultivation in the liberal arts, literature, philosophy, art and poetry. Greek intellectuals became slaves for Roman villas, educating the new rulers of the known world. The camparison between Greek and Roman civilisations and Modern Europe and the United States has been made before. Just like Rome, the two principal components of America’s global domination are the economy and the military or the economy propelled by military domination. The is no doubt about the technological superiority of The United States. Yet the paradox here is that, although the Romans ruled the mediterranian, they nevertheless felt a compulsion to copy, immitate and emulate the high culture of those they conquered. The Americans, on the other hand, feel no need to follow this route. Even though Spanish is taught in American schools and native speakers of the language could soon equal English, Americans know that they have no use for other languages. A society which so fervently believes in capitalism, a civilisation that speaks the very language of capitalism has no need of anything else. The Americans know this and does the rest of the world. The teachers of English as a foreign language are today’s Ancient Greek slaves. But there are a couple of significant differences of course. Firstly, their poorly-paid job is to enable a foreigner to to make money ; the TEFL teacher provides access to the market. No philosophy, independent thought, poetry or art is necessary here. Secondly, many of the cultures so eager to learn this gilded-tongue are themselves for more culturally advanced than the Anglophone world, take France and Germany for example. So the planetary prepotence of the English language represents a rather puzzling inversion of the classical world. As the capitalist world proclaims disaster triumphant, perhaps it is time for us to put other verbs, nouns and prepositions together, to create a new means of expression, a post-capitalist language.