Natural first names

Naming children is one of the basic, loving acts of parents.  The source of the name can vary from person to person and country to country.  Nature, on a selective basis, is one of these sources.

Flowers are apparently universal.  In English, relatively common flowery names include Camelia, Lilly, Rose, Heather, Jasmine and Iris, to name a few.  Granted, there are some Petunias, Hollies, and Daisies. Israeli parents use many of these names too.  You can find girls named Vered (rose), Iris, Yasmin, Dalia, Rakefet (cyclamen), among others.

Yet, there are some differences in naming habits between English and Hebrew speaking parents. Anglo-Saxons have no problem with some basis herbs, such as Basil or Rosemary.  Yet, trees are taboo, except for maybe Hazel, which is more nut than tree inspired. By contrast, Israelis love trees as a source of names. To name but a few, there is no problem to find an Oren, (pine), Erez (cedar), Ela (terebinth), Hadas (myrtle), Dolev (plane tree), Shaked (almond), or Tamar (palm).  Israelis are even open to a grain, Shibolet (wheat flower), while the English-speaking world prefers to leave them on the table.

On one hand, this English prejudice against tree seems unjustified. A boy strong as elm or cedar or a girl as sweet as a palm or perfect like an almond would be a blessing.  On the other hand, I would not wish Redwood, as magnificent as it is, on my child.  I would not want him to have peeling skin and become so wide that car could drive between his legs, not to mention to live hundreds of years. So, as naming goes, it is often better to go with the more pedestrian among them, especially flowers.

Euro myopia

The annual masochistic cultural event is now past us. Eurovision, in its gory and glory, has announced the winner and sent the pleasure of hosting the event to Israel, my home.  To what degree the songs represented popular culture is debatable but it is clear that they reflect the culture of the collective tastes of the 42 committees that decide what the Eurovision public might like.  What can be learned from that?

The more things change, the more they stay the same….

This year’s event had some wonderful tributes to the past, intentional or unintentional.  We got to see soundalikes of Bruce Springfield, Shakira, Marvin Gaye, Jennifer Lopez, Iron Maiden and Justin Bieber. Imigation is the greatest form of flattery. In terms of style, three movie themes popped up: the Titanic, the Rocky Horror Picture Show, and a James Bond movie.  On the vaudeville side, jazz and a Russian variety act pleased the old-timers.  A singer that is young and sufficiently good looking does not have to have a good voice but being handicapped and good looking is not sufficient. Opera is classic but not cool while Balkan singing is cool but not classic. It was nice to see that a few more countries dared to sing in their own language and express their pride that way.  I am looking forward an Irish song in Gaelic one day.  Still, English is the king, no matter how foreign that language is. Curiously enough, the opera singer sang in Italian, a natural language for her.  As for the lyrics, they tended to fit three categories: love, nonsense or politics. Alas, nothing new there.

The state of the art

As represented by the spectrum of songs, today’s music is far from homogeneous. Ballads, hip hop, rock and rolls, R&B and rap are all acceptable as long as the costumers and pyrotechnics are there to entertain the audience visually.  Computer effects are almost de rigueur in terms of expectations.  In terms of the physical appearance of the singers, especially female, looks do count to a certain point.  Modern singers generally need to be attractive and show some, but not too much flesh.  Interestingly, Netta flaunted and exploited her lack of lankiness while other female singers bravely wore dresses that exposed their less than sexy legs. As for the males, Vikings are not expected to be dress like metrosexuals nor are heavy metal guitar players.  Alas, the double standard continues.

The looking glass

Israel gets to host Eurovision next year, which is an artistic, cultural and political achievement. Toy managed to connect with a vast number of people, the hallmark of a successful work. Not only that, Israel keeps on winning by sending exceptional, not typical, personalities to the contest.  The last Israeli first place singer was Dona International, not exactly a representative Israeli woman. Politically, votes for the Israeli song are often affected by international feelings toward Israel. Austria even awarded the song points, to the great disappointment, I imagine, of the BDS movement. The reward is the opportunity to prove yet again to the world that life in Israel is actually quite safe and normal in most senses and Tel Aviv is a great place to party. Culture and politics, ultimately, go hand and hand.

The pleasure and pain should be more intense next year even if the song may not be any better.

Superior culture

Many nations, especially those with a strong economy and world position, feel that that their culture is superior.  A short list of countries that have viewed themselves as the beacon for others include ancient Greece, Rome, Persia, France, English, America, Japan and China.  This point of view can also be expressed by the use of its opposite, i.e., all other cultures are primitive by comparison and, consequently, need to evolve in the direction of the supreme leader, whichever country that may be.  The pejorative descriptions include primitive, simple, naïve, barbarian and undeveloped.  Thus, this world view is that our culture is the true path while the others were never or are no longer valid.

Alas, this perspective is highly inaccurate. First, national culture is not an equally distributed or identical set of values. While most societies have an elite with the education and financial means to enjoy the fine arts, below this niche is a mass of people with little time, energy and knowledge to enjoy those pleasures. Instead, they tend to relish the simple pleasures of life, often linked with alcohol and violence, verbal and physical.  Coliseums, stadiums, bars, brothels and Internet are their venues for release.  Given a choice between watching a concert or a local football (either American, British or Australian, as relevant), the latter is by far the more popular choice.  As part of the festivities, abusing the opponent in the most crude and primitive terms is an essential part of the fun. It is no fun to be a Yankee outfielder standing in the grass of Fenway field taking constant abuse from the fans without any limit of good taste or respectability. So, no matter how high the high culture, the lowest common denominator is ever present.

Moreover, until the age of the Internet, an extremely short period of 30 years, most people knew nothing about the vast majority of other cultures. What did the typical English or French citizen know about the complexity of Japanese ink drawing?  What did the average Chinese know about Leonardo de Vinci?  What did the American in the Midwest and even on the coasts know about Debussy?  As my mother would say, they knew gournicht, nada. So, how can a collective culture decide that it is superior to others?  The answer, to quote my mother again, is chutzpah, sheer gall. As in many matters, a feeling of superiority is often the result of ignorance, not merit.

Even if cultural merit could be discussed in an objective, civilized manner, superior and inferior are extremely difficult words to be defined.  In terms of visual art, complexity of process seems to be one criterium. A painting by Titian is more intricate than an African mask. Yet, a print by Andy Warhol is less. So, mere sophistication is not sufficient.  Possibly, time investment is a factor.  While the paintings on the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo may have involved thousands of hours of backbreaking work, so did the making of a totem by West Cost Indians. Multiplicity of instruments or media does not measure the level of music as the harmony of a Beethoven symphony is matched by the subtlety and beauty of a Chopin piano prelude or an Arabic oud performance. Objectively, better and worse are hard to define objectively.

Culture, like religion, should be approached with modesty and a sense of perspective.  Every person has preferences, which is quite legitimate. However, to reach the conclusion that ours is better ignores the ambiguity of ours, our lack of knowledge of others and the intrinsic problem of defining high culture. Instead, it is possible and desirable to be proud of your own culture while seeking the beauty in others, no matter how “primitive” they are.