English impressions - real or TV reality?

 

I have no first-hand knowledge of England. My short jaunt to London during my tour of Europe some 45 years ago is irrelevant. On the other hand, I have watched BBC television for many years now, mainly programs featuring food, travel and house searches. To explain, watching the news in Israel can be quite stressful and generally produces an urgent need for escapism. From all these programs, I have created a certain picture of English life in terms of food, houses and language. However, I am uncertain to what degree this TV picture of life actually reflects reality.

The English attitude towards meals as shown on BBC programs seems a bit extreme. First, it seems that the UK hosts a cult of worship towards ham and bacon, with each person having a strong opinion on the best combination of ingredients, shape and cooking. The English, including Scots, seem to be rather particular about the breakfast meat and view it as a required element of any proper breakfast. The closest equivalent that I have ever observed is the Iraqi obsession with perfect rice and how to properly prepare it, with each grain having to be separate. By contrast, UK diners view vegetables as guests that are only present because of noblesse oblige. The only plant-based materials, aside from potatoes, that grace an English plate are a few green peas, some lonely lettuce leaves or a few controversial Brussels sprouts. A tomato and cucumber salad is exotic in the UK, apparently, not to mention any side dish made from eggplant or zucchini. The final idiosyncrasy, at least as compared to the Middle East, is the reluctance and discomfort of UK diners to eat with their hands and actually touch their food. Whether in the Middle East or  Ethiopia, grabbing a piece of bread and scooping some dip is an act of community bonding. Apparently, such sharing is considered barbaric farther north. It seems that English dining is a bit rigid in content and manner.

UK houses also seem to have certain characteristics. First of all, most residences in the UK shown on the BBC have narrow entranceways, barely wide enough for one person to stand, let alone allow two people to pass each other. They remind me of the Spanish kitchens typical of the vacation flats that the UK holidaygoers seem to fancy. Another desired feature of UK housing is this space called a “solarium”. First of all, it seems a bit absurd given how few days a year the English sun deigns to appear. In sunnier climates, such a room becomes a gigantic oven in short time and is useless. However, maybe I am missing something. Moreover, according to the programs I view, open wood beams in the ceiling are considered “character” and a positive feature. At a glance, I would consider them an ideal place for dust and spider webs. Most interestingly, on the real estate programs, many British house seekers insist on having a pub nearby.  It seems hard to believe the Brits and Scots actually seek these features.

Of course, UK language is different from that of the United States in terms of both words and style. I simply am unsure how much people actually speak like the characters on the BBC do. Americans would never say the words posh, high street and mate, using fancy, main street or name brand and friend or man, respectively. Even more striking is the English avoidance of direct speech. Regardless of the situation, it is apparently acceptable to begin a conversation with “nice weather”. Even more peculiar in my eyes is how far a BBC character will go in order to avoid saying that something is derogative. Such discretion is so unreal and actually may be unreal.

I have no idea how much any of these random impressions of life in the British Isles are true or representative. It is quite possible they do reflect the habits of some of the population just as the content of The Housewives of Atlanta or any similar program does carry a grain or two of truth. I imagine that I would need to spend some time there to better ascertain whether BBC programs reflect reality or pseudo-reality. In the meantime, I can only speculate and be amazed.

Media hyperopia or regional blindness

Many years ago, New York Magazine published its famous map of the world as seen by New Yorkers, with New York and California occupying 3/4 of the map.  This visual distortion may have been caused by cultural prejudices and airplane connections.  In any case, the residents of the east coast knew and still know much more about Los Angeles than Portland, Maine or Raleigh, North Carolina despite the latter’s closer proximity. Recently, I started following the posts of a professional colleague that lives in Lebanon. Keep in mind that I live in Karmiel, some 17 kilometers (10 miles) from the Lebanese border and 48 kilometers (30 miles) from the Syrian border. Reading his posts, I realized that I knew close to nothing about what is going on either country, not mention Jordan, also not far away, about which no I have no idea what is happening.  Yet, I easily follow events in Washington, London, Paris and even Ankara, which are much farther away, through daily reports in Israeli media.

One cause of this news blackout is simply lack of air time.  We in Israel have more than enough to talk about with our multiple elections, clashes with the Palestinians and tension with the Syrians, not to mention Bibi’s legal troubles. Trump, Putin, Nasrallah, and Erdogan. There is no problem filling any empty moment in the news. As a result, there is no media oxygen for Lebanon’s financial problems and Syria’s rebuilding as well as anything about Jordan. Egypt is in another continent for that matter. Yet, events in these countries have a direct influence on stability in the area. The only way to find out is to access the foreign media in Arabic, which most Jews in Israel cannot do even when they speak some Arabic. In terms of media, our neighbors are invisible.

To be fair, part of the problem is the lack of available information.  Israel is the only country in the Middle East with freedom of the press. In other words, official announcements from these countries are less than reliable.  Objective reporting comes from underground sources, who do not have a complete picture. For example, it is impossible to know how many Syrians have been killed in the last year or what the state of the health system is. Any objective fact that does come to light from an official news source may be accurate but partial as these governments tend to censure negative news. So, sometimes the media reports nothing because there is nothing to report.

Still, some would say that the Israeli media has an unspoken policy of neglecting the region.  I strongly doubt it as freedom of the press is still strong enough to prevent government-inspired news blackout over the long term. I don’t buy this conspiracy theory.

To be fair, many countries tend to ignore their closest neighbors. The American press has extremely little to say about Canada and Mexico.  The French hear more about Israel than Belgium, with whom they share a common language, mostly. I wonder how much news Londoners receive on Wales and Scotland, not to mention Northern Ireland. The BBC even ignores the weather in the Republic of Ireland, as a policy in my opinion, even it reports it in Northern Ireland. I don’t know if this regional blindness applies to Asia or South or central America but would be interested in finding out.

So, t New Yorkers are not alone in having their vision affected by culture and media. Physical distance and economic impact have less influence on our media than one would think.  The media worldwide is farsighted, i.e., hyperopic.

Foreign tube watching

I admit that I enjoy watching foreign television. The reason is not that it has better or different programs than my local one.  In fact, the format of most television shows worldwide is fairly similar both due to the universality of human nature and tendency to copycat successful programs and of equally poor quality. For that matter, I don’t even have to fully understand the language to enjoy the television as any child can tell you. In my countries, I could guess, often successfully, the meaning of many words.  For example, Russian is very helpful in understanding Polish while Italian is a cousin of Spanish. By contrast, in China, I understood absolutely nothing and was mesmerized by the tube.

First of all, I enjoy the tone of the speech, which reflects the nature of the language and people as well as the agenda of the television stations. For example, most characters in English tend to speak quietly and even respectfully. At the same time, they often are mocking the same institutions and customs they are respecting.  This is a nice contrast to the argumentative and loud nature of Israeli television. Chinese television is owned by the government and is therefore very nationalistic and proud. Aside from great military victories and impressive scientific and economic achievements, they also proudly present many shots of Chinese food production and preparation, always in a loud fashion (to my ears).  Thus, I was able to see parts of China that I would and will never visit in person. Not having lived in the United States for some 30 years now, the TV in the United States is interesting in terms of how the language and emphasis has changed. I can see by the words and message that America is much more critical and direct than it used to be.

The national differences are also reflected in the local version of internationalized programs.  The French version of Master Chef focuses on the artistry of the food while the Israeli program focuses on the past and present personal situation of the participants. The tone of the original Japanese Iron Chef is straight out of the classic Samurai Movies while the American one resembled sports broadcasting. In the Israeli The Voice, exotic is expressed by an ultra-orthodox singing rock while in China strangeness was represented by a black Chinese-African singing Frank Sinatra in English (and singing it well, it should be noted). I would not say “lost in translation” but instead “localized in translation”.

Finally, the aspect of foreign television I enjoy most is the commercials. Ads reflect the 

concerns and psychology of the people.  For example, based on the frequency of the ads on UK television, the Baby Boom generation is very concerned about paying for funerals while those in their twenties are having a hard time getting accepted for a credit card. French commercials focus on food, health and losing weight, no surprise. Apparently, death and credit are of no concern. Americans appear to be hypochondriac as every third commercial (or so) sells some drug, faithfully and rapidly reading through the long list of potential side effects and ultimately encouraging people to consult their doctor, of course.

So, while I am not a big fan of spending much time in hotel rooms when I travel, circumstances sometime lead to dead time, which I profit from by watching TV. I am amused, surprised, educated and even entertained by programs whose words I barely or do not understand at all as I learn about the culture, psychology and concerns of that place. In short, foreign television is much more interesting and educational than my local local one, just like the proverbial lawn.

My Week as a Muslim – Comparison and contrast

Recently, the BBC showed a documentary entitled My Week as a Muslim presenting the experience of a very white English woman that not only stayed with a Pakistani Muslim family in England but also dressed up as a Muslim woman. To add drama to the situation, albeit unplanned, a major terrorist incident involving a British Muslim man occurred that week in the UK, increasing local racial tensions. The film created a discussion in the UK. As a Jew living in the Galilee in Israel, where some 50% of the population is Arab, if not necessary Muslim, and interaction between the populations is daily, I drew different conclusions.

To summarize that woman’s experience, she had lived all her life in a very white, i.e., non-immigrant, community with very little interaction with other British (as the Irish would phrase it). She was offended by the comments she received from people as she walked the streets dressed as a Muslim, such as to home to where you came from,  and gained an understanding of the impact on racism on the lives of its victims. More strikingly, she was completely unprepared for the cultural differences involved as living as a Muslim. From simple matters as not drinking to alcohol to more comprehensive ones as wearing “modest” clothing and the multiple daily prayers, she was clearly overwhelmed by the “adopted” culture. When combined with the fact that her hosts spoke perfect English with an English accent, were born in the UK and  were socially active in local charities, she was forced to realize that their external wrapping, no matter how foreign to her, does not make them less English than her.

Watching the program, I tried to imagine the experience of a Jewish woman spending a week as a Muslim in one of the villages in the Galilee. Many differences came to mind. First, modest clothing, especially covering one’s head, is common and accepted in Israel among many religious groups and would not be nearly as alien. Second, not drinking alcohol is much of a less of a big deal in Israel, at least for those over 30.  In general, it appears that Israeli Jews know more about Islam and Muslim culture than the average British even if large gaps of knowledge and misconceptions exist.

The issue of language was interesting. Among themselves but both within and outside the villages, Arabs speak Arabic, albeit with many Hebrew words. Most Arabs can speak Hebrew quite well, with the exception of older women from the village, but use Arabic as their daily language for communication with other Arab speakers. Unlike the situation in the UK, Muslims and Jews do not always speak the same language, but that difference is almost never a point of contention. 

The stickier point is national identity.  Some of the people in the film yelled “Go back to where you came from” in ignorance of the fact that many of the Pakistani have lived in the UK for more than three generations. Still, the Pakistani Arabs appearing in the documentary clearly identified themselves as British. By contrast, in the Galilee, nobody disputes the attachment of the Arabs to the area. The ambiguous and therefore tense area involves national identity. Israel Arabs are clearly officially identified as such since their religion and citizenship appears on ID cards. However, many, especially the younger ones, are highly ambivalent about their country of origin.  Very few want to move the PA for both social and economic reasons. On the other hand, many are not completely at peace at being labeled “Israeli.” The whole issue of identity is rather complicated for Israeli Arabs, especially Muslims.

In comparing the situation in the UK and Galilee, it appears that it is much easier culturally to be a Muslim in Israel. Due to the similarities between Judaism and Islam as well as natural interaction and government policy regarding language and non-discrimination, Muslims do not have their cultural values challenged by non-Muslims, i.e., no body tries to convert them or turn them away from their religion or way of life. On a political level, UK Muslims, at least the long established ones, appear openly and unashamedly British, which has still not occurred in Israel regardless of their formal civil status.

It is clear that a similar documentary shot in Israel would also show that a major cause of racism is ignorance.  At the same time, many of the reactions and experiences seen in the BBC documentary would look rather different in the Israeli version.

Puttin’ Putin in his (historical) place

I recently translated some articles on Putin, the elected dictator of the Russian Federation.  It brought up two seemingly separate memories.  Once is a book dated written in 1978 by Alexander Yanov describing the Russian new right in the then-called Soviet Union. He discusses the ideology of the right-wing opposition to communism, as personified by the Solzhenitsyn, noting its absence of any enthusiasm for democracy and pluralism. The other is a joke about Russian thinking: a Russian peasant, when given the choice of anything he wanted on condition that his neighbor gets twice as much, chose to have one eye removed. My thoughts during this translation were how Yanov was correct about the historical cycle of Russian politics and how tragic it is.

To explain, Yanov noted the bipolar behavior of Russian national politics from extreme terror by an individual (Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Stalin, to name a few) to irresponsible leadership by small class of elite (Moscow boyars, post-Soviet industrialists). He noted the historical lack of ruling elite trusted by the mass of people to act in the overall good of the country.  As a result, populist leaders, such as Putin, have had no problem gaining support in suppressing any organized opposition to totalitarianism. He contrasted this with the UK, where the British aristocracy had (barely) enough wisdom to see that the only way to guarantee their dominance was to ensure a decent life for the common folk. 

This consideration for the general welfare in England allowed for the gradual development to complete democracy. By contrast, Russia is once again in its dictatorship mode, creating “equality in poverty”, i.e. nobody has any real freedom. For those that would like to see a confident, not paranoid Russia and believe in the intellectual potential of Russians, this situation is a depressing tragedy, a bit like watching a drug addict trying to kick his habit.

I would to find some good Russian expression putting some silver lining to this cloud, but, alas, Russian proverbs tend to be as pessimistic as the current political situation.  Instead, I will do as most Russians have historically done, wait patiently until something changes but without any great hope.

Orwellian Thoughts

During my just completed family visit to Los Angeles, I had the rare chance to spend many hours reading a book as I was sitting next to my father in the hospital.  By chance, I had purchased the first volume of George Orwell’s essays, reviews and essays, encompassing the years 1930-1940.  During these years, he wrote about poverty, both in the UK and abroad, and the Spanish Civil War, some of his passions. He also wrote about ideologies of the day, namely fascism, communism, socialism and capitalism, from his independent point of view.  During 1930’s, people had much more hope and passion in politics.  Among the articles he wrote in 1939, one titled Not Counting Niggers caught my attention not because of its currently unacceptable name but instead to its content, surprisingly still relevant 70 years later.

In this article, he critiques a long-forgotten book by Mr. Streit entitled Union Now calling for a complete union of “good” democracies to fight the “bad” bullies of the time, notably Germany, Italy and Japan. Orwell does not reject offhand the need for such a union and even sees a logic to it.  He also does not challenge the assumption that the latter three countries are morally evil.  However, he does question how pure the democracies are.  In 1939, France and Britain had huge empires which provided them with the economic resources to support their standard of living at home.  The “dependencies” as they were called had almost no economic or political rights of their own, a fact equally acceptable to both socialists and conservatives of the time.  In other words, while the crimes in the fascist country were clearly different in kind, Orwell questioned just how innocent the Western democracies were.  He should be noted that he completely supported the war when it broke out but did not turn a blind eye to the existing stains.

Today, Western democracies no longer have empires.  The UK has a Commonwealth, a formally voluntary union of former colonies while the France has arrangements for its former colonies. Instead, current Western standards of living are substantially based on low wages, not to mention poor working conditions, in China, Bangladesh and India, to name just a few third world countries.  To demonstrate, the price of basic of garments would be significantly higher if they were actually made in the US or UK.  Unfortunately, “out of sight, out of mind” often still applies.  Since people do not actually see those sweat shops, they don’t exist, just as Orwell wrote.  Awareness has increased in recent years as a result of some shocking newspapers. Nonetheless, Orwell’s belief that political and labor rights should be universal is still far from being prevalent.

In my view, George Orwell is among the greatest writers of the English language in the 20^th century. While some of issues he treated are no longer relevant, his enlightening point of view and beauty of language still provide a ray of light in the 21^st century.

England, English culture, and the Middle East

The British government and public have had an intimate part of the marking of the modern Middle East.  London was a controlling factor in the establishment of almost all of its current government structure (aside from Saudi Arabia, which did it the old-fashioned way, arranged marriages with all of the tribes).  Being so involved since World War I with such an irrational, uncivilized group of people has often caused the British to feel like Prof. Higgins in Shaw’s Pygmalion, without the happy ending but with more than one Liza. 

The basic problem is that fundamentally the Arabs, with subgroups based on religion, national status such as minority or majority, and national tendencies such as Egyptian and Libyan, simply do not behave like the modern English.  They squabble, threaten each other, fight, and kill. They do not see the virtue of a nice cup of tea and cooperation.  Neither did the Gaelic peoples of the British isles not so long ago, but who remembers that? 

The Jews, excuse me Israelis, are even worse.  As long as they were willing to be helpless victims and politely request help, they were sympathetic.  Once they stopped showing respect to their betters and began forgetting their manners (which they never had very much anyway), they were no better than their Arab cousins. 

British sympathy goes with the party showing the most passive state of misery.  Refugees, Jewish or Arab, in miserable camps waiting for a solution from above, especially the magnanimous British government, touch the heart.  Insolent locals taking matters in their own hands and conducting wars and terror are so lacking class.  Israel would have probably never been created if the local Arabs had not fought the British in the 1920’s and 1930’s.  The British did not appreciate the bombing of the King David hotel either.

Whether the British prefer the Jews/Israelis or the Arabs is a question that has probably has been surveyed many times in the past.  Clearly though, the Arabs are much better at providing what the British so desire: good hospitality and proper respect. Among others, Lawrence of Arabia was truly impressed.  A guest at an Arab residence gets a comfortable chair, good food (no cucumber sandwiches), good coffee, and the feeling of being important.  An Israeli household can provide the good food and comfortable chair, but, well, arguing is an ancient Jewish tradition.  The Bible says that Moses even did it with God.  Israelis do not know how to discuss the weather for more than ten seconds, generally summarized by the sentence It is hot today.

The facts and history of the modern Middle East are apparently irrelevant.  In terms of sympathy, no matter how right or wrong either side may be, the issue seems to be “How British are you?”  Looking at the current mess here, this has turned out to be a rather flimsy basis of policy.