The times are a changing

  

Subject: The times are a changing.

What we see is only a fraction of what’s out there and our perception takes in a fraction of that and our thoughts about what we perceive narrows it down even further as we try  to make sense of it. This means “our” reality is always partial. The real world that exists independently of us is simply the whole of what is out there. We glimpse only that small part that is within our reach and only concentrate on a small part of that.

It’s a shock to think we have such a small perception of the world around us since in our minds eye we are important but like the galaxy in which we exist we are only on the periphery of that reality, the enormous concentration of stars which make up what we folksily call ‘the Milky Way' which  itself is just one of untold numbers of galaxies that make up the universe.

Yesterdays an Arian rocket carried the Web telescope and as I write is positioning itself in a terrestrial  orbit prior to its unfurling, like a flower to start receiving those minute infra red electro magnetic signals which indicate the event we call "The Big Bang", 13.8 billion years ago which signalling the actual creation of all we conceive as our universe.

The question of what went before is almost impossible to imagine given we can only just conceive of the Big Bang, a cataclysmic eruption which caused something we call matter to move apart on a trajectory which continues to expand 13.8 millions of years later. Web will probe the outskirts or the periphery of this expanding phenomena when time started and way before our own earthly contribution which was infinitely small.  We wonder at the chances of a repeat of what happened on earth happening somewhere else in the universe and certainty statistically speaking it's possible but the biblical folk-law might need updating but even there the  impossible is possible.

Of course with biblical dating God created the world 3928 BC which, adding the extra years since the birth of Christ, 2021 gives us 5949 years in total, somewhat short of the actual 13.8 billion but of course the 'creationists' would have us believe otherwise.

Today we received the news that Desmond Tutu has died, yet anther towering anti Apartheid  figure fades into the past. A charismatic character, full of fun and exuding a dogged determination to oppose Separate Development in all its guises he discomforted the South African Government by his humanism which struck a cord with the people, black and white who were living under the policy of “them and us”.

His buoyancy in the face of criticism knew no bounds and he was one of those unwavering optimists in the face of such a brutal government which threw many of his contemporaries in jail, or worse. His infectious chuckling personality made him impervious to criticism and he was a shining light over this whole sordid chapter in South African history.

Desert Island Discs

 

Subject: Desert Island Disks



Desert Island Discs is a doyen of BBC broadcasting, it’s a program which goes back to 1942 devised by Roy Plomley, it’s nearly as old as I am and has graced the airwaves for all those years relatively unchanged in a tried and simple format in which a personality chooses eight records they would chose to have with them if they were ship wrecked on a desert island. The records are interspersed with anecdotes of the interviewees life story, it’s simple, uncontrived and very effective and for those reasons  it’s still a joy to listen to after 79 years. This mornings personality was Prue Reith the South African who took over the role Mary Berry held on the television program “Great British Bake Off.”

The people who are asked to appear on the program come from all walks of life, from science to music from literature to, in this case a celebrity cook. The charm of the program is its wide breadth of individual talent, their life story’s and their choice of music is a simple mix. The program starts with  ‘Sleepy Lagoon’ a sort of hypnotic tune which represents the melodic sound of a slow rhythmic sea breaking on the the shore of this wistful, mythological desert island. It’s a peaceful, unadulterated repose from the hurly burly of our hectic lives and the sound of the opening bars is a signal for the nation to set aside what it’s doing, sit down and simply listen.

Prue Reith’s choice of music and her eclectic memories bridged her growing up in Cape Town to the strictures of Apartheid, from which she was separated by the families wealth and private schooling and importantly, being white. Her mother was an active member of ‘Black Sash‘ the liberals attempt to show the government not everyone accepted their ideological injustice and instead were, to different degrees, sympathetic to the black cause but not necessarily their empowerment.

In 1962 she and I crossed paths, she heading for the UK and me for Cape Town.  I, naively uninformed about the perverse racial containment policies of Mr Vorster, she no doubt shocked by the flower power age of sexual freedom so at odds with the Calvinistic idealism emanating from Pretoria.

Her music reflected the music of the 50s and 60s and echoed the sound of the Beatles/ Rolling Stone era with a touch of Aretha Franklin and Tennessee Ford, and  a piece of  Chopin thrown in for good measure. Her memories were of someone privileged and well educated with a rounded view of life which came from having money and living in the era of white exclusivity in sunny South Africa. This sense of entitlement and an objectivity which power brought  builds with it  a sense of emotional security which many South Africans had in those days. They were Southern Africa’s ‘chosen people’  much as the Israeli sees himself entitled through a biblical context, to be ‘gods chosen people’ which can lead to a sense of arrogance, vis a vis others. This arrogance or implied right to dictate events has historically been shown to bring trouble on the heads of those who feel that way. In South Africa white people now play second fiddle to the power of the democratic vote which only shows the implausibility of equating everyone as the same through a ballot box. The literacy rate in the townships is extremely  low, as is employment, both fundamental in determining the security and objectivity in the voting process. Its the source of the ANCs power in a democracy which is defined, as all democracies are, by a head count. There are never any tests such as obtaining a driving licence for your suitability to drive, X marks your choice, its a binary, one or the other but of course common sense tells you it’s not binary but shaded into many considerations.

All voting systems use many assumptions, not least the fitness to appraise but it isn’t so long ago that I would have been excluded, as would all women, only the landed gentry assured their place on the voters roll.  

Fairness and hard fought emancipation won the day and it’s sad to see so many people refuse to turn out on polling bay sighting the corruption of the political class.  It was just so when the gentry were totally in charge and we have come a long way from then.

Utilitarianism

 Subject: Utilitarianism

Fortitude used to be valued as that human temperament in which you bore the vicissitudes  of life with courage and equanimity, in other words you adjusted to changing circumstances with some sort of stoicism, valuing the good things in your life whilst accepting the misfortune that often goes hand in hand with it.

COP24 is an example of a political inability to shuffle around our prejudice in the search for a new reality, like waking up after a boozy weekend on Monday morning and having to face the demands of a job which paid for the extravaganza. The best thing is that you still have a  job, the worst is not letting go of your memory of the good time  as if it were a new reality. Life can be difficult at times but it’s still life, the alternative, death is unknown but in terms of our planet and it’s warming we have at hand a dreadful scenario, just around the corner which will force change on all of us,

Firm leadership would put in place the necessary adaptation we need to prevent the worst of the effects but the politicians, always wishing to sugar the pill make it appear that there will be no pain and they have the answers. The inability of China and Russia to turn up at COP 24 is politics at its worst, it’s a blind refusal to think of the planet as a whole and the need to inflict the new reality on their people. In the boardroom of the banks the investment in new coal fired generating plants or the exploration for new oilfields is too financially tempting and anyway if we don’t others will.

The structural imbalance created by refusing to burn fossil fuels is enormous, it’s been the centre of our economic survival since the 18th century as we coalesced into cities and manufacturing units producing goods for people to buy.

Consumerism is a drug which is hard to relinquish in this predominantly consumerist world, ‘doing without’ is de rigurur, it seems to highlight some sort of personal inadequacy in your potentiality to provide which is a deep routed aspiration in us all. The essence of our western way of thinking is a ‘competition for resources’, we have something, you don’t. The BMW, appliances, holidays in exotic places, the very exploitative almost venal, one up man-ship displayed almost everyday in our lives. If we could learn to downsize and de clutter though rejecting the unnecessary purchase of  things, the effect on the  paper trail of our profligate nature would improve and our drain on the planets natural resources greatly diminish.

Perhaps we need ‘ration books’ again, a limit on what we can spend. There have been times in the past when circumstances determined stringent government action, the ration book was one, the limits on overseas currency another, maybe the number of flights or air miles, all would reduce our carbon footprint. We could reign in by ourselves but my bet is there’s not enough magnanimous spirit to ensure success and certainly in international politics, window dressing is a fine art.

Turn down the heating and your consumption. Learn to do without and make your resource stretch further. Tax profligate spending on lifestyle purchases and usher in the concept of utilitarianism, taking in society as a whole and reducing our obsession with jealous individualism.

Kramer v Kramer, a real life dilemma

 Subject: Kramer v Kramer, a real life dilemma.

Are women more touchy, more liable to 'fly off the handle' than men or is it always down to circumstances. Cultures differ enormously in the attitude to the role gender plays in a society. From the Islamists control and assumption of total guardianship of women, (women becoming a possession), to the acute 21st century sense of a women's rights vis a vis men, promulgated in many western societies but not across the world.

Men over the ages bore the responsibility of protecting and providing, economically  for women who were seen as physically weaker and this was accentuated in the union of marriage where assumptions on protection are made and codified in a church. The instinct to fight and protect was also accentuated throughout childhood where it was implicitly right for women and children to be  ushered into the lifeboat first, leaving the men to survive as best they could. On a more plebeian level men were expected to give up their seats to a woman and only men were conscripted to fight and if necessary die for their country.  They were expected to do the work thought unfit for a woman and since the dawn of man, role -play was clear both in the military and in civilian life, men do the heavy lifting and women were (at least in the Bronte books) placed on a pedestal and admired for their beauty not their brains.

All this was built on an assumption of a common respect and compromise but in this new age, equal rights has dissolved the roles into what is more akin to an adversarial relationships where men and women are assumed to be equal and opposite and the work they do is similar if not the same. Its only in childbirth and child rearing are the traditional norms retained, if not strengthened by the law being more specific in defining the rights of the child.

The brilliant film Kramer v Kramer highlighted the prescriptive nature of the law when it came to matrimonial rights, particularly the rights of custody of a child. We were mystified by the laws lack of empathy for the man (Dustin Hoffman) who had after a shaky start had been exemplary in bringing up his son when his wife (Meryl Streep) walked out on him. Her decision to return and demand full rights for the repossession of the child left us emotionally troubled.  That the law advocated her rights, whilst so easily repudiating his rights seemed so wrong.

The cult of femininity which seems to demand not only equality but superiority has made enormous strides such that many men feel cuckolded by the opposite sex, so indebted are we by motherhood. The confusion young men feel being first attracted and then rejected by a girl, in law, irrespective of the signals she originally put out, insists it's her choice which makes the relationship one sided. The disaster of rejection is made worse by the accusation of coercion, not the threat of physical force but through sexual allure the women is in a position to control where what was deemed appropriate, is now  inappropriate and becomes an indictable offence.

Sexual attraction is an ambiguous minefield. The straight, the gay, the bisexual all have a different focus when it comes to being attracted. Attraction itself covers such a wide range, it can be physical or their poise, their movement their voice or accent even their smell or the clothes they wear, each contributes to a sense of  attractiveness. Even the tricky subject of hormonal changes which trigger responses in women and  underly  natures procreation are a factor. Attraction has a moral, ethical and a religious aspect which govern us depending on our faith or the lack of.  Is it any wonder then that what seems simple, perhaps the most natural and emotional fulfilling event in our lives it can become controversial and litigious when  the sexual act is seeped in a cultural misappropriation.  In some cultures having intercourse is as uncomplicated as washing your hands, in others it's the most reverential thing you can do magnified by its ties to family and upbringing.

Holding hands is an outward example of the displacement of 'self' into something wider and  argued, more fulfilling but it's not without a warning.  This is new territory which holds its own dangers. It's not a benign event since it has an effect which is different for men as for women. It's not equal and never has been, it's not only the physical difference but also the psychological difference in the value men and women place on a relationship, one searching for economic security the other emotional security which is often obscured by a lack of cultural objectivity.

Men are often categorised as stronger yet in so many ways they find themselves disadvantaged by social norms and the presumption that women are more fragile. It is clearly wrong when one observes in the world at large  women carrying by far the largest burden and only in the West women were deemed delicate.

Kramer v Kramer taught us the lie of that proposition.

Why cant I get a face to face appointment anymore

 Subject: Why can't I get a face to face appointment anymore.

When did the medical profession devolve into being apothecaries. I know I'm being unfair to the pharmacy trade but the reliance on drugs alone to heal sickness is an acute disservice to patients with many complex ailments. The dentist who pulls a rotten tooth or the doctor who applies a splint to a broken leg is healing using old fashioned analysis and even older remedies. Today when we visit the doctor, (if we can get a face to face appointment), to also discus the deeper issues around which our suffering is linked.

Our medical complaint is often only the tip of an iceberg which a telephone consultation can only do poor justice too. A stammering often inarticulate description of where the pain is located amongst that jumble of organs which make up our body is only revealed by a hands on investigation the doctor pushing and probing to find the cause of the pain. Broad spectrum drugs are not the answer and since the doctor is seldom held accountable for their failure and you are personally expected to have read the warnings  in the fine print of the accompanying leaflet to avoid the danger of adverse effects.

How often having started a course of drugs you find the side effects are worse than the original illness. From statins to asthma inhalers these things are handed out like sweets at Willy Wonka's Factory, try one get one free. The follow up and the precautionary advice from the prescribing doctor is missing, feel free to abuse your body, the doctor advised you to use it.

How did we get here. The pandemic is initially blamed for doctors wanting to keep their patients at a distance but as the authorities, led by medical advice now feel it's ok to mix at a football match or in a pub,  how come we are not allowed to mix with them. I'm only describing GPs not the doctors in our hospitals who "bravely went where no man went before" dealing with very ill patents. No it seems our GPS are hesitant to get back to working as they used to for other reasons. Perhaps they never liked the unending stream of smelly poorly educated people who continually turned up at their door complaining of things which the patient, could do more about with a change of lifestyle.  Perhaps this "free at the point of use" has gone too far and certain classes of people should be reminded of their place in the order of things, after all the 'better off' are catered for with private medicine (as they are in education with private schooling) and the philosophy of "let them eat cake" is just starting to work its way through the ranks.

Getting old

 Subject: Getting old

When we were very young we needed guidance, lots of guidance from our parents because we were new to the world and knew little of its dangers. When we grow old apparently we need the same amount of guidance, not because we don’t know but because although we do know our knowledge doesn’t fit in with the the current fashion

There is also a deferment of our common sense approach since now we are judged, not by our accumulated knowledge but by our lack of mobility and balance which creates a picture of general degeneration. Our minds still hold the key to many occasions in the past when we were faced with similar situations and it’s human nature to evaluate that previous set of events with the current one. It’s not being unkind or disrespectful to differ with what one is told is a more modern better way if your experience leads you to question what is happening around you since questioning and having a different opinion is the essence of your identity. The fine balance between being assisted when you need assistance and being assisted when you don’t is a problem.  As you move from being an adult pillar to a crumbling post, the outward appearance often hides a steely resolve not to give in to the vicissitudes of life, to pull your weight and not be a burden. The trick is to convince those around you that you are not unmindful of their concerns but that, for today at least, you are much as you were yesterday and that though there will come a time when help is needed, hopefully it’s still some way off.

There is a desperate urgency not to fall out with your children in the belief that the bond is far too precious to tamper with in some silly display of hubris. And yet it's nor easy to hold yourself to that commitment when, for a host of reasons the gulf in reasoning has grown since the children first opted for their own persona. We egged them on to be strong minded and independent. We assumed they would end up sharing a great deal  of commonality and that arguments wouldn't spoil the relationship.  Unfortunately it's part of the divide we experience is our growing frailty, we the parents usually experience in virtually all aspects of our demeanour. From shaky limbs to a shaky memory, old age  charges the son or daughter with remorse at this irreversible demise from a strong forceful role of guardianship and a sense of providing security whilst growing up they are suddenly left holding the proverbial baby who now needs more and more of their attention just at a time when they have enough troubles of their own to contend with.

For the parent it's equally disturbing, this loss of a positive role to play in their children's lives. With their authority gone and in a greatly weakened state they cling to some sort self respect by insisting on their independence and self sufficiency. The problem is it's sometimes it's too late to find a compromise before stiff intransigence and harsh words damage a beautiful thing, the love between a parent and their child.

Live and let live

Subject: Live and let live.

Our obsession with the past and it's different values to those present today has spawned a host of critics each failing to acknowledge that cultures change with the passage of time and holding the current crop of people responsible or even in some cases indictable is plain silly. Books abound detailing the inferior position black people in this country held 60 years ago and its argued still hold even in today's society. But It fails to confront the plight of "the other" a black person, a foreigner or more prosaically, the under nourished, poorly educated white person living in towns where they have always been exploited and today, even worse,  ignored as the need for them to labour in the fields or factory  has passed.

This bias in the media regarding the views of people wishing to grind the grist of racial profiling to the detriment of white people and is so counter productive if the complainers wished to gain the ear of the majority white folk. No one likes to be cast in a mould, not the black person nor the white person since stereotypes are nearly always harmful. There are of course truths within the stereotype but the essence of the individual is missed when indulging in preordained prejudice.

Currently there is a serious spat going on with the Yorkshire Cricketing Board accused of institutional racism. Racism and banter are close bedfellows in that things are said in a jokey way without any malice intended. The comedians of the 50s reflected a view  held in parts of our cities regarding the changing face of those inner cities as people arrived invited by government without any provision for them to be accommodated let alone assimilated in the existing environment. One way to let off steam about this influx of what was seen as cheap labour with alien customs, is to make the situation comedic, laughter after all is a great healer so long as the butt of the joke is not hated. It was a time when opinions were very divided as to the size and extent of the immigration and its repercussions on the way of life of the people who had just emerged from the depredations of a world war and all the pain it had brought the towns now inundated with what were then foreign people.

The phrases used to describe the in coming people were out of context derisory but often when used as a form of banter between friends not so. This was especially true when people drawn together in a team use nicknames to illustrate their friendship. The red head, the overweight, a large nose or balding head all draw  banteresque comments from mates in the dressing room. The Pakistan batsman Azeem Rafiq has accused Gary Balance, the Zimbabwe born player, both playing for Yorkshire of using racial slurs against him. Balance says that it was all banter and that Rafiq had responded with his own name calling. What a sad place we are in when teammates can't joust with each other for fear of litigation and surely if Rafiq had been peeved about it he could have spoken up at the time. As we walk on eggshells, ever fearful of being called racist, ever mindful that whilst  the terms used towards Balance and his Zimbabwe heritage were not classed as racist,  those towards a Pakistani player were. Words are thrown about in the heat of the moment but there was no heat, only banter and along with the robust sledging commonly used by the Aussies one has to ask why this is raised now and not then or is there an active force afoot determined to trawl through comments made years ago in a context very different. Is the white person being made to  squirm for his heritage and history if so perhaps we should take a closer look at  for-instance blasphemy laws which to most white people living in the UK, horrific. Do we call out the Muslim for claiming the visual representation of the Prophet Mohamed is indictable with a death sentence or that women are stoned to death for being unfaithful. Do we follow this injured party in his renouncement of us and retaliate or do we say, let's live and let live if this complex multicultural society like ours is to function.