Graduated!

Today I received my Postgraduate Certificate in learning and teaching in Higher Education. While in itself not a very major award (it's just the first step towards my Masters and, hopefully, a PhD) it was a nice opportunity to experience an anglosaxon style graduation.

On the right here you can see me in my fancy dress. One up front, and one from the back, so that you can see the colours on my robe. Every type of award has it's own colourcode here, made up from the basic colours of the university. For Derby those are red and light blue.

The broad blue and red bands indicate that I am a graduate Bachelor of Science, and the dark blue below that on the cape indicates that this has now been extended with a Postgraduate Award. Once I manage to complete my Masters degree the dark blue cape will get a red rim. a phD robe is different entirely and is competely blue with red accents. For now though, I'll settle for the black.

(for those interested, you can click on a picture to enlarge it)

Jack Of Clubs

I was just reading the blog of JackofClubs, someone I've had many heated but interesting debates with in the past. I came across his entry called With Friends Like These... . It is the type of post I can't read without responding to it.

In my opinion, posts like this are extremely dangerous, and are the cause of much of the problems we have today, certainly not the solution.

First of all I think this type of post is completely single sided. Extreme intolerance or agression is a serious problem in the world today. it exists and it should be countered and eradicated. But the suggestion by examples like this that the problem is an exponent of a single cultural or religious group is absolutely ridiculous. Too easily do we forget similar tendensies that exist in our own culture, or that of our other neighbours. Have we forgotten the crimes of Nazi and KKK sympathisers? Of extreme black power groups? of violence between Sikhs and Hindus or the aggression that is displayed by Zionist militants? Furthermore, are we forgetting that even in the case of looking at Muslim fundamentalism, that there is no such thing as Islam versus Christianity? There are similar problems between Islam and Hindus, or even within Islam (Shia and Sunni for instance). This whole construct of "them versus us" with "them" as the evil aggressor just does not exist.

Even worse it is the exact same type of propaganda tat is used by extremists in the Islam camps or elsewhere to incite hatred to other groups. If you want an example of Christians abusing a Muslim, or any other combination of ethnic groups, you will have no problem in finding it. And that is the second major problem. Incidents like this do not even have a proper reference or clear link to facts or truth. Did this happen? Was this the whole story? We don't know. Even if it happened exactly like this, then the question of how representative of a whole culture / religion or ethnic group this is still remains.

In my opinion posting this post contributes to the same problem that it tries to identify and condemn: The aggression of one ethnic group to another. It puts the poster on a same level as the extremist imams that try to convince their followers that Christians are evil, or the Zionist calling for the eradication of Palestinians. As long as we keep hating people, and condemning their beliefs and values, we cannot expect anything else in return.

On a side note: I do agree with the comments made here about the European Union. It is far too eager to expand, and in doing so compromises the values it claims to stand for. until the EU manages to sort out it's decision making structure no one should be allowed to join. After that only when there is a sufficient equity in the values and morals that are displayed by its people and government.

Just semantics

More and more we live in a virtual world. I’m not talking about the virtual reality of computers and the internet; I’m talking about the virtual world of language and semantics. No longer do the mental constructs with which we judge the world around us come primarily from our own experience. It’s the subtle semantics of the media, politicians and other public broadcasters that build our moral views by associating words with certain connotations to events in the world in order for us to perceive them in a certain light.

Terrorists murder soldiers, Suicide bombers kill bystanders, and the Israeli army liquidates a senior Hamas operative. We’re talking about 3 more or less similar events here, which is taking the live(s) of someone outside of any possible lawful context. Still no western media would accuse the Israeli government of murdering Hamas operatives, nor would they say terrorists have liquidated our soldiers. Why?

Prisoners in Guantanamo are detained, the CIA uses extraordinary rendition when dealing with certain prisoners, Hamas have kidnapped an Israeli soldier, and the Israeli have captured senior officials in the Hamas government. Again we are talking about comparable events; impairing someone’s freedom outside of any lawful context. And again no one reports the capture of an Israeli soldier by Hamas. Why not?

While this may all seem very futile, I think it is tremendously important. And although in general people tend to say “it’s just semantics” I think semantics is really nothing trivial at all. Have we liberated Iraq, or are we occupying it? Is Hamas a terrorist organization, or are they freedom fighters? Is there an axis of evil, and does that imply that whoever is fighting the axis of evil is good? Is George Bush a religious fundamentalist when he asks god to bless America?

I think it’s time we become more aware of the little word games that are played by the powers that be. Subconsciously they are dividing the world in to good and bad, black and white simply by finding different labels for similar events. In stead of being able to use our own subjective judgment on an objective experience, we are now reduced to consuming someone else’s predefined subjective classification of events. You could wonder if we even have an opinion, or if we merely pick one from the opinions on offer. And with the single sidedness of the opinions on offer, I think that is a worrying possibility.

Human rights?

On the surface, human rights are something we all intuitively agree with. Or maybe we feel we have to, as it tends to one of those dogmas that you are not even allowed to review critically. I’m inclined to believe though that the whole concept of it is fundamentally flawed in a way that is closely interlinked with our own selfish nature.

My main problem centres on the word “rights”. Where did we get the ridiculous notion that someone owes us something, that we are entitled to anything? Yes, our conscious existence is a valuable gift. Maybe it’s a gift from god, or maybe just from extremely rare chemical circumstances. Where we got it doesn’t really matter for this discussion, as long as we can agree that it is a very valuable gift. But does this mean that because of this gift, we are entitled to more?

Let’s say we got another really valuable gift, maybe a big nice sparkly sports car. What would the appropriate response be? I would say you’d be thankful and feel obligated to take real good care of your car and show you appreciate it by putting it to good use. What certainly would not be appropriate is to start demanding fuel and roads to be built, as you are entitled to them because you have a car. That’s just ridiculous. Receiving a valuable gift should make you thankful and humble, not demanding and haughty.

So then do I suggest that human misery doesn’t matter, that people should just be happy to be alive and shut up? No certainly not! I think human life should thrive in a situation where it is given the opportunities and freedom to do so. And this brings us to the second problem with the word “rights”, a problem more to do with our unwillingness to take responsibility ourselves.

How useful is it to define a right? Let’s say I did have the right to have roads for my sports car. Until you tell me who is going to give them to me we’re not going to get anywhere with this are we? It’s all very easy to agree that people in Sudan have a right to have sufficient food, security and education, but if we stop there and then wait for someone else to fix the problem they will never get it. And that’s exactly where we are today. We all agree on human rights, but no one wants to pick up the bill.

It would be more appropriate, and more productive I think, if we would define our behavioural responsibilities in terms of duties. It would mean everyone is charged with some form of action, and not just waiting around for their piece of the pie to be delivered. In stead of a right to food, maybe we should have the duty to feed. Maybe in stead of the right to medical treatment, we should have a duty to care. In stead of the right to live in freedom, we should have the duty to defend each others life and freedoms etc.

It is time for an attitude change. Being human does not mean the world is there to fulfil your needs and desires. Being human means having an obligation to live your life in a worthy way, and contribute to that of others in order to maximise their chances of doing the same. And maybe when we finally realise that we are here to contribute to that joint potential, in stead of trying to rake in whatever we can to fulfil our own, will we find a way to live together in relative harmony.

Shut up and listen

One of the big topics in the news this morning, was our governments plan to counter terrorism in Britain. Obviously it had shocked a lot of people that the 7/7 bombers were home-grown British citizens. The problem, the government reasoned, was that there was not enough social cohesion, and these young men had felt alienated from society which had enabled them to attain a mindset that would lead to this gruesome deed. So far I completely support the analysis. Unfortunately that’s where the good news ended. Because how were we going to remedy this sense of alienation? Schools were going to have to teach children about what it means to be British: values, and an understanding of modern society in the light of its history.

There’s a fundamental misconception underlying this approach. It’s the same misconception that underlies the whole problem of global terrorism if you ask me. For some inexplicable reason we always think that our point of view is the only right point of view. And if people do not warm to our point of view, then that is probably because we haven’t explained ourselves well enough or perhaps because they are just plain stupid. And from this perspective, the proposed solution makes perfect sense. So what then is the problem? The answer I think is twofold.

First of all I don’t think the best way to let people warm to you, is to overwhelm them with your point of view. I don’t think the 7/7 bombers did what they did because they did not feel they understood Britain. I think they did it because they felt Britain did not understand them, of not respecting their values, their world view. And so once more overwhelming them with our point of view is only going to be counterproductive. Maybe we should consider the possibility that it is not them who need to listen, maybe it is us.

Secondly, if we really want to explain what it is to be British, then maybe we should try and present a more fair view of what we really are, and especially what historic role Britain has played in world events. Maybe in stead of painting a picture of the gallant knights of the west, we should be more honest about the exploitation that took place in imperial Britain, and about the mess created by the parts of WWII that we always conveniently forget to mention: The oil battles in the Middle East. And yes of course Britain has done a lot of good things, and is certainly not some evil empire. But some recognition of past mistakes would go a long way. It would give certain ethnic groups a sense that they are being done some justice.

But most of all it would educate the white British population on what it means to be British, and to take responsibility for the fact that alongside many good and positive aspects, there are darker sides as well. And maybe when white British people finally understand what it has meant to others that they are British, will they finally appreciate how they are perceived in the current era. So yes, let’s have compulsory lessons on what it means to be British. But let’s invite others to tell us what it means to be British, in stead of us telling others. Let’s just shut up and listen, in stead of talk.