Multiple worlds

Part of my efforts to identify identity representations and cultural diversity in cultural and geographical spaces other than the Central and Eastern Europe, I discovered today Andrée Chedid and hers "Multiple child". Born in Egypt, of Christian/Maronite Lebanese descent, she spent part of his life in Egypt and, from age 14, in Europe. Although I tried to separate her personal life and experience of the story narrated in the book - a one-arm child whose parents are killed during the civil war in Lebanon - sent to relatives in France, with fragments of memory of family episodes spent in Egypt - it is difficult to do it and, at a certain extent, detrimental to the understanding of the book.

Omar-Jo is a 12-year old, with the calculated distance and human knowledge of an adult, who founded refuge of his traumatised childhood - he lost his arm in the attack where his parents died - in a Manege of Maxime. Little by little he is reconstructing his universe, making laughing people and children and bringing back to life Maxime, whose decision to left his previous career for his dream of the Manege blocked in his impossibility to go beyond his own limits. He owned the idea and the real project but was lacking the grain of enthusiasm to put on the right move the wonder-wheel. Omar-Jo is becoming the soul of this project, accepting to dedicate his time to recreate for free the world of circus.

In visual or written arts, the image of the circus is corresponding to the idea of freedom and children' imagination. Within its limits, all are free to laugh, beyond any social, racial and linguistic differentiations. This is the world shared by Omar-Jo with the others, including with the taciturn Maxime. Brought from his world of hate and fratricide conflicts, he is fighting hard, together with the other characters from the book, to preserve his identity. In this world of appearances, he is himself, outlining its meaning as a human, and asserting his normality, beyond the different perception of his one-arm appearance: "I am a normal kid". And this is starting with the fight to keep his name in the front of his host relatives from Paris. Ironically, he will give a new name, made of a similar composition of two names, to his feminine correspondent - "the poppy lady" - Cheranne, with a destiny split between France and United States. Together, they share the double belonging, but only the boy is presented in interaction with his past and history. His father, Omar, told him once: "You have to learn getting older than the others". This is his destiny of belonging to a world where what matters is survival. And this was, for years, the education the people belonging to his place - the author let know later in the book that it is about Lebanon, Egypt being the direct geographical reference, but this might happen in many other places across the Globe. Lysia, the woman for whom Omar-Jo mother used to work is the older version of this journey: she lost everything, including his social life, wandered from a place to another and living outbursts of sentimental attachment to life.

The structure of the book is very simple, without complicate characters and narrative. The centre of the story is Omar-Jo, but his energy shadows the action of the other presences, missing the multiplication potential of a world as a huge manege where we are trading our nostalgies and the lost roots.

Eastern connections

The death of the Romanian poet Adrian Păunescu, known for his literary support for the former communist dictatorship, is reopening many questions regarding who will be in or out the "national pantheon" of the recent history of this Eastern European country and who will decide the value. In the last hours, the national media praised the value of this poet and "activist for the national cause", and politicians of all colours sent official messages of condolences. Shortly, Păunescu was one of the creators of the club, "Cenaclul Flacăra"/The Flame, using the context of the 60-70s for create emulation among the youth on the side of the party. Late 80s, he used to animate these meetings - with a program of folk shows, poetry clubs - with direct interventions on TV from stadiums across the country. Practically, the old generation of Romanian folk singers - still popular for a generation now in its 60s, but also among some younger hippies, is paying a tribute to Păunescu, as one of their promoter and financial supporter. In these shows, registered on vinyl and listened religiously during communism and thereafter, he was extensively reciting his poetry, with long praised hymns to the dictatorial family and was talking and talking. A close friend to the so-called heir of the Ceausescus, the son Nicu, he was taking part to various parties reserved for the new generation of Communist nomenclature.

His increased popularity, and some scandals he was involved - a rape accusation, an accident while driving drunk - worried the old generation of apparatchik and he slightly acquired a status of "dissident". He limited his public appearances in a review bearing the name of his club, devoting an impressive number of pages to his poetry and various nationalist-populist views, and introduced to a Romanian public opinion lacking basic sanitation and medication various "healers" and alternative medicine "experts".

In the first days after the fall of communism he attempted to found refuge to the US Embassy in Bucharest, but was held hostage for a short while by the "revolutionary" mobs. Then, in the front of the free cameras of the national TV he declared with the same emphasis used to recite his poetry: "I was a pig".

His political and public career continued smoothly in the next decades: he was several times MP and representative of the country to the Council of Europe, from the part of social-democratic party and for the nationalist-extreme party Greater Romania. He hosted several shows and was a frequent presence on private and national TV stations, with opinions regarding (national) culture, history, relations between Romanian and Hungarian minorities, (national) literature.

His sources were the protocronist and national-communist values, sharing perspectives without connections with the European present and values assumed by this country. His poetry was very rich in volume, but with a lot of versifications and improvisations.

The current Romania media lament - with some isolated critical perspectives though - is a testimony of the problematic process of changing mentalities. Death is a natural phenomenon and we don't need to become heroes for fighting against human oblivion and to project ideal past only for being able to survive a precarious present.

Zemanta" style="border:none;float:right">

The Roma issue

An interesting testimony regarding the recent issue on Roma from a representative of the Roma community from Romania, studying now in the United States. Romani/Gypsy heritage is part of the European culture and history and we, Westerners have to be fully aware of their importance and value. Everybody is talking extensively about the problems with the Muslim communities, or the situation of religious minorities and so on. But, wait! For centuries, an important Roma community is living in Europe and we are too blind to see it but when there are becoming too visible for our diffuse view.

A proof that we, as Europeans, are self-centered not only in relation with the overseas worlds, but also in relation with our closed neighbours.

Related articles

• Romania is shirking its Roma responsibilities | Nicolae Gheorghe (guardian.co.uk)
• EU suspends Roma complaint against France (foxnews.com)
• Q+A: Who are Europe's Roma? (reuters.com)

Zemanta" style="border:none;float:right">

Where is the failure?

Image via Wikipedia

In the last months, the discussion about the failure of the multicultural model in Germany is becoming a daily issue in the media and academic debates. I assisted already to several public debates and read lots of news about. The most used words are: crisis, failure, minorities, integration. The religious arguments are added linguistic and cultural problems, with references to historical traditions and past, European legislation and local traditions. Movies, cultural events and other public debates are dedicated to this issue, from the German or the perspective of minorities.

What it is very unclear by now is the common understanding of terms - as multi-kulti, for example, a very cool concept if used by the hip youngsters living in Berlin - and the common project of society. What are the expectations of minorities and in what respects the state offer must be adapted or changed accordingly to satisfy these needs? Is this a common understanding of the minority policies at the level of the most part of the minorities - ethnic, religious - living in Germany? What are the limits of the new walls?

Related articles

• Is multi-kulti dead? (economist.com)

Zemanta" style="border:none;float:right">

Intellectuals and public positions

I am not a fan of Arundhati Roy and I qualified many of her public positions, regarding the Middle East especially, superficial and emotional, without any connection with the reality. My interest in her case, as in the case of other public intellectuals, is the public reaction following statements and positions expressed on sensitive political problems. The latest scandal is related to her view of an independent Kashmir, stirring protests and media calls for lynchage and a possible trial for sedition.

Right or wrong, she expressed a point of view, as an intellectual. Her opinion is not the perfect truth, and should be took as such, and eventually discussed and refuted. This is the normal way, but very often it is happening exactly the opposite.

An example of intellectual cowardice

He is having the chance to change something. A small contribution to a long process of correcting misunderstandings. Culture can build these bridges, because it is said that great mind think alike. But, why not to continue and enforce and support the largely accepted narrative and refuse to get involved otherwise than by being a simple follower? Sounds so familiar.

Egyptian Author Objects to Hebrew Translation of His Novel

By DAVE ITZKOFF

Fatiha BouzidiAlaa Al Aswany

Alaa Al Aswany, the best-selling Arabic-language novelist, has objected to the translation of one of his novels into Hebrew as protest of normalized relations between Israel and Arab nations, Agence France-Presse reported.

A group called the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information said in an e-mail to supporters that it was offering a Hebrew translation of “The Yacoubian Building,” a novel by Dr. Al Aswany set in an apartment complex in his native Cairo.

The group acknowledged that although Dr. Al Aswany refused to have the book translated and published in Israel, it was offering a free translation prepared by a volunteer in order to “expand cultural awareness and understanding in the region.”

Dr. Al Aswany told Agence France-Presse, “What the center and the translator did is piracy and theft, and I will be complaining to the International Publishers’ Association.” He added: “My position has not changed regarding normalization with Israel. I reject it completely.”

A representative for the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information declined to comment to Agence France-Presse.

Short notice on intellectuals

I continue to be extremely interested in issues regarding the Cold War, as I consider that many of the patterns created then still continue to influence our ways of thinking and translating the facts. The place of intellectuals, mostly scientists, in the East/West confrontation, their blindness - in supporting indefinitely the Moscow's part - the "red hunt", the political manifestos, and all the games behind the scenes will play a big part of my studies and lectures. In these stormy times, intellectuals were used or offered their services, to a part or another, and rarely were able to express dissenting opinions and positions. I am very familiar with the situation of intellectuals during the communist regimes, I followed some of the cases of intellectuals during the Third Reich but had a limited knowledge of the situation in the "free world", excepting my regrets for the lack of integrity in defending the cause of free thinking and to oppose repression from the other side of the Iron Curtain.

The very detailed biography of Robert Oppenheimer gave me new food for thought for deconstructing the myth of the beneficial role of the intellectuals. Far of becoming an anti-intellectual myself, I recognize the limits of human self-awareness and indifference, independently of the level of education and intelligence. Preoccupied by their works, not without direct political and civic implications - as it was in the case of the atomic bomb, they have often limited understanding of the need of expressing solidarity and civic involvement. For example, enjoying the freedom of thinking might imply to be able to defend, whenever necessary the situations when other scientists are not able to do their work in the same conditions. Very often, I think that "Dreyfus affair" was a very singular case in the intellectual history.

For me, Oppenheimer is a sad example of this lack of involvement and the refuse to be more than a wonderful mind. An encyclopedic mind and a coherent scientist, he - like many others - went involved - but not as a full member - in the activities of the Communist Party from the US, mostly as a counter action to the advance of Nazi Germany. From the book, it is not very clear the ways in which this US Communist Party fought or reacted against the fate of the European Jews. In Europe, Paul Dirac and other scientists were more connected to the Soviet Russia, but still unable to create a common front against what was happening in Germany, including with their Jewish colleagues. Little by little, once he's involvement in the Manhattan Project is increasing, Oppenheimer is becoming neutral regarding the communists, whose fellow traveller used to be for a while and dedicated fully to the works for building the atomic bomb, together with other bright minds. At the realm of the Cold War and when the pressures at various levels of the American establishment increased, Oppenheimer will be the perfect victim for separating the waters. The trial was unfair and the non-academic ambitions of the political and military elites played an enormous role. But, even in this situation, he refused to express but than scientific advices following the consequences of the use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki or to separate clearly from his late Communist involvement. Obviously, it was a sporadic involvement, without a clear knowledge of all the sides of the story. And the public support from the part of his fellow scientists was limited as well. He was, perhaps, hiding many untold stories and the question of a possible spying case the Soviets, directly or by tolerating this kind of activities of scientists working for the Manhattan Project, is missing from the book. But, even confronted with days and hours of interviews and confrontations, he kept a low profile and hide behind his quiet world of ideas. He behaved predominantly defensive and reactive, as he lost the case before exposing all the arguments. He devoted most part of his life to a scientific project, but without understanding clearly all the implications. The tragic situation of being carried by the unchanging waves of politics.

The chronological structure of the book, describing step-by-step his personal and professional life, is not helping too much in understanding the context and the history of mentalities from this period. Given the enormous documentation, it was perhaps the most recommended way to build the narrative, but a synthetic perspective would add value and create a bigger framework of the world of ideas from the period of the Cold War and before.