Relative Equality

One of Orwell’s most quoted lines, from Animal Farm, refers to the fact that while everybody is created equal, some are more equal than others. The context of this criticism was so-called egalitarian societies, i.e. the Soviet Union but, unfortunately, this relative equality applies in all its ugliness to Western perception of modern events.

To demonstrate, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015) presents a long list of terrorist attacks that have occurred this year.  Some of them have truly been horrendous and barbaric.  The attacks in Kenya and Mali can only be described as barbaric. Yet, in terms of world coverage, the attacks in Paris received more press lines than all the others combined.  Ideally, every human life is equally precious. In practice, a European (or French or Australian, et al) life is much more highly prized in terms of its loss. In simple terms, 3^rd world people can die like flies. Yet, the fight against barbarism, Islamic style, is a universal fight with any victim, regardless of their country of residence, regretted. May all their memories be blessed.

Likewise, the US Anthropological Association just overwhelmingly passed a motion calling on the academic boycott of Israel.  As an Israeli, I would be the last to claim that Palestinians have equal footing to Jews in Israel.  In fact, I would have no problem understanding such a motion if said association also decided to boycott Jordan, which refuses to give Palestinians any citizenship rights and has massacred them in the past, Lebanon, which keeps them in refugee camps, Egypt, which has closed its border with Gaza and flooded the tunnels with sea water, and Syria, which merely kills them. In fact, the only country where Palestinians have some legal rights and political autonomy, not to mention economic stability, is Israel. So, if an organization feels that human rights are the highest priority, such a policy should be applied equally.  Otherwise, an observer might believe that the decision was not based on high principles but instead on low-level anti-Antisemitism.

Applying  the Serenity Prayer, the one about the courage to change, serenity to accept and wisdom to know which situation applies, the question arises regarding what a person that is less equal needs, courage or serenity. Personally, I would like the knowledge of how to change so we can have a world where everybody is created equal, period.

Only your brother (sister) can beat you up, linguistically

One of the great cultural complexities of language use is the knowledge of when you can use a term. It is not only a matter of meaning and register (formal or familiar) but also of status. For example, in English, every idea has at least two different words to express it, if not more. Sometimes, the choice of word depends on your relation to the person to whom the idea is addressed.

It may be depend on your gender.  For example, if a woman tries on a dress that may have fit her when she got married but that was many years ago,  a man asked his opinion of the dress in front of the salesperson and feeling obliged to tell the truth would have a hard time phrasing his answer in a respectable manner.  He might say “It’s a bit small on the top.” A woman, especially a friend, can get away with being direct: “Your tits are hanging out.” Brave is the man that tries that line. While men can use the word “tits” behind a woman’s back or in a certain context at home, woe is he that uses it in front of her in public.

Likewise, ethnic labels are sometimes reserved to the member of that ethnic group only. The classic is that outdated racist term “nigger.” The fastest way for a white person to get abused, verbally and/or physically, is to use that term directly to an African-American, correctly so as the expression is insulting.  However and most peculiarly, black comedians can and often use the word when referring to their “brothers”. This reflects street use by some African Americans among themselves, when it is not intended as an insult but instead of a social comment. As Richard Pryor once said, there are no niggers in Africa (but there are in Detroit).

Finally, there are some terms that we use in private, only to be spoken directly to ourselves when nobody else is around.  Countless people get up the morning, look at the mirror and say out loud “you are fat, ugly, dumb and lazy,” or at least some of those terms.  If anybody else made that comment to us, we would find it quite rude.  Yet, rules of etiquette don’t apply to conversations with private conversations.  Terms such as portly, big boned, learning challenged, and a bit slow, to name a few have no place in our private world nor should they. As Detective Friday used to say, say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So, knowing the right word to use is often much than a matter of linguistic knowledge. Cultural knowledge is often also required.

Sisterly Complex

I just recently participated in the wedding of my wife’s daughter.  To clarify, both I and my wife have a daughter from a previous marriage. I had the honor of escorting the bride, for which I am grateful and appreciative.  In the “Family Room” before the ceremony, I noticed how complex modern families are.  Aside from the bride, groom and their respective parents, there was the daughter of her biological father’s second marriage, my daughter and the two sisters of the groom.  Each “sister” is different in some essential way.

In English, the bride invited her half-sister, step-sister and sisters-in-law, respectively. English, being a very precise language, distinguishes between the actual blood connection of one parent and trappings of marriage with no blood connection. Also, the in-law additive specifically defines the connection of those sisters to the bride.  It should be noted that the need to describe these relations is not actually modern since the death rate of mothers historically was very high, necessitating many second marriages and their incumbent variations.

In French, the distinction is less clear, not surprisingly. The term demi-soeur applies to both sisters acquired through remarriages, not distinguishing the presence or lack of blood connection.  Also, the French term for sister-in-law, belle soeur, is strange to a non-French speaker since belle means beautiful. Woe to the husband or wife that fails to say the spouse’s sister is pretty, especially if she isn’t. So, it is not 100% clear whether the sister attained her title before or after the wedding.

Russian also does not make a distinction in blood. The term сводная сестра [svodbodnaya sestra] can be literally translated as an “associated sister”, which makes sense without going into too many details.  On the other hand, the last sister in this case are accurately described as the сестра мужа [sestra muja], literally “the sister of the husband” There is no confusion there.

For our sisters of longer term, Hebrew follows the English lead. A half sister is a  אחות מחצה  [ahot le mahaza] while a step sister is אחות חורגת [ahot choreget]. It should be noted by exchanging the first letter in second word to a heh, a softer h sound, the step become killing, which would really be quite unfortunate but occasionally justified. As for the sister-in-law, typical for Semitic languages, Hebrew has a distinct word without any hint of a sister, גיסה [gisah].  In this region, apparently, a spouse’s family is far too important a matter to make it a half thought.

To avoid any misconception, the wedding was quite successful. The food was tasty or so people told me as neither the bride and groom nor the parents ever really get much of a chance to eat. People stayed late. The music was only loud, instead of intolerably loud. The weather was beautiful. Finally, the bride, of course, was beautiful.  A good time was had by all, even all those sisters.

Alice Speak – Terminology in the Modern Middle East

Alice, the speaker of the wonderful sentence “Words means what I want them to mean,” would feel at ease today in Israel.  After each and every senseless act of violence, supposedly intelligent people use words to mean exactly what they want them to say, freely ignoring their dictionary meaning.

The first example is the description of act of taking a knife and attacking an Israeli.  The Israeli press refers to such foolhardy individuals as terrorists.  Historically, terrorists, like most criminals, had no intention of being captured or killed, hoping to live another day.  IRA hit men and anarchist troublemakers are classic examples.  In fact, the only groups that have ever been willing to die for their cause on a mass basis are the Japanese and the Arabs. The dictionary terms would be kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers (or knifers, as applicable).  By contrast, when the families of the deceased suicide knifer are interviewed publicly (we don’t know what is said privately), absurd words leave their mouths.  The cable guy from East Jerusalem had no intention of running people over but instead had an accident.  Of course, the family is now a hero in the eyes of many Palestinians. Since when has getting into an accident made you a hero? Another quote from the bereaved families in East Jerusalem is that the son or daughter did it because of the occupation. The word occupation implies a serious lack of economic and political freedom.  Curiously, Arabs living in East Jerusalem have more such rights than anywhere else in the Middle East, including the Palestinian Authority and Gaza.

Then, there is a matter of age.  Traditionally, modern Western societies have labeled by people by birth date.  Children are under 13 while youth or teenagers are from 13-18.  A person becomes an adult at 18.  This assumes of course that some restraining family structure is present to prevent those not-yet adults from acting on their impulses. Alas, in the current situation, Palestinian culture, including parents and teachers, encourages act of violence against the external enemy (but not against local Arab leadership). So, is a 13 year or 15 year old trying to stab a soldier, unless he had a long sharp knife by accident of course, a youth or a responsible adult? It is impossible to say that s/he is rebelling against society. On the contrary, society approves the act. There is a classic definition of chutzpah: a person that kills his mother and father requests mercy because he is an orphan. Similarly, how can a 13 year old that follows “adult” rules be considered too naïf to be judged? Are the 17 year rock throwers youth or adults?  Even Western law has problems defining that one.  It is all in the eye of the dictionary writer.

Alice would definitely appreciate how everybody is bending words to fit their political agenda.  On my part, I find it disturbing and depressing, almost Orwellian. I somehow prefer the intellectual honesty of a real murderer, shamelessly admitting he killed someone because of jealousy or a debt. Killing is killing regardless of how and why it is done.  Yet, somehow, I have more respect for those who are honest with themselves. Alas, such individuals in the Middle East are rare.

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.

California Hope

Recently, I have spent time in the hospital with close family members suffering from UTI’s (Urinal Track Infection) in Israel and California. I will relate the differences in the hospital environment as the Japanese treat height differences: the person next to the tall one, i.e. accentuating the positive.

California, with all its problems, often is willing to invest in a vital need even if the budget is tight.  For example, under current California law, a nurse in a regular ward takes care of no more than four patients.  In practice, this meant that the nurses treating my father were attentive and patient. They were able to use their sense of humor to lower high tension situations.  Not only that, the fact that the ward was equipped with electrical IV pumps meant that they did not have constantly check the IV flows of their patient.  This meant that even at the end of their 12 hours shifts, they were pleasant and professional.  As has been said about going to prison, the punishment is being to the hospital; no more is needed.

On the same note, it should be noted in California’s favor that, albeit imposed by the judicial system, the prison system is finally starting to try to treat the sources of problems of its inmates instead of just incarcerate them.  Granted, there is a large disproportion between the amount of available resources and scale of the problem. However, there is no doubt some prisoners are not born criminals but instead people that need help. 

Alas, nothing is perfect. The condition of LA roads continues to shock and distress.  The veins and arteries of Los Angeles are truly clogged by cholesterol of awful surfacing (as well as cars of course).  The state government could clearly do a better job maintaining them.

California is well known for being ahead of its time in terms of seeking solutions. The development for electrical cars began as a mandate from California decades ago when it realized that it could never really “beat” air pollution over the long term. This attitude is clearly preferable, as an example, to that of the government of Venezuela, which has decided to deal with the problem of high inflation (68% annually) by not publishing inflation data. It would be funny if it was not tragic.

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.