Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

  • Funny how hateful people without a sense of humor always ask those who’ve offended them to apologize. When a group of evangelical filmmakers make a film about American missionaries killed by an indigenous tribe, whose relatives later convert and befriend the tribe, other evangelicals jump for joy, right? Wrong, when the filmmakers have the temerity of casting an openly gay actor in one of the lead roles. Instead, some evangelicals have taken the filmmakers, Every Tribe Entertainment, to task for their choice. Reverend Jason Janz, a Baptist minister in Denver, Colorado, has demanded that the filmmakers apologize. Demanding apologies from those who say or do things that are allegedly blasphemous.  Sounds…familiar, no?

    But, perhaps you think Christian fundamentalists are somehow inherently less militant or violent than Muslim ones? Referring to the filmmakers, Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, wrote in his weblog (Jan. 13, nossobrii.blogspot.com):

    "Granted, we must not overreact. And it would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men’s houses. But what they have done is no mistake. It is a calculated strategy."

    This is no way apologizes for violent Islamic stooges (or violent Israeli ones, or violent Hindu nationalists), but let’s get real: we can’t, as a country and culture, argue against Islamic fundamentalism out of one side of our mouth, while we tiptoe around or praise these elements in non-Islamic culture.

    Compare and contrast the visuals accompanying this article with those accompanying the piece on the Danish cartoon protesters. Here we have a nice, low-frontal portrait of Rev. Janz, face exposed with a look of confident seriousness, hands in pockets: Concerned Dad. Just watch your back if Dad comes upon you kissing your same sex partner in a dark alley.

  • It’s not just the Danes in trouble over the Mohammed caricatures, now. No doubt the American Right, with no sense of self-irony, will take this as evidence to support their arguments for curtailing our First Amendment freedoms and fuel for the War on Terror. The AP photo accompanying the story in all the media outlets seems deliberately provocative of this effect, an upward facing perspective of two menacing goons. I’m certain the goons would be thrilled.

    When I see stories like this, my impulse is in an opposite direction: to reaffirm my distance from thugs like these by embracing freedom of speech. Repeatedly, I’ve seen this debate characterized as a careful balance between "freedom of expression and respect for faith."  Not only is this not even a close call, in my mind, it’s incoherent, since most monotheistic faiths do not respect each other, and certainly do not respect polytheistic faiths, or faith in non-theistic principles such as science…or freedom. In preemptive response to the inevitable "How would you feel?", I’ll add that I’m an occasional, but dogged, reader of anti-Semitic rants in fringe American journals, etc., linked to by Anti-Semitic webroom posts or by accident in response to some unlucky "I feel lucky" Jew-related search on Google (I read a real doozy in a Russian paper a year ago or so) and the answer is: I feel hurt and angry as a Jew, and glad that the system is working and these losers have a forum for their beliefs. I respect faith, but hardly think it’s an endangered species, particularly at this time and in this country. Thinking about the state of our civil liberties on the other hand, fills me with terror.

  • Let Oprah, our nation’s lie detector do what the Democrats won’t.

    Mike_lukovich_1                                                                                              

    (click on image)

  • [x-posted to Unreal City]
    In the 19th century Karl Marx famously declared religion to be the opiate of the masses.  In the 20th, Simone Weil responded, "Revolution, not religion, is the opiate of the masses." 

    Where have all our revolutionaries gone?

    Coretta Scott King’s passing is a hollowing reminder that the time of America’s revolutionaries, its great liberals, has passed us by.  In a span of five years in the 1960s we lost Jack Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.  Since then the country has shifted dramatically to the right. 

    What world do we live in today?  Martin and Coretta King’s daughter Bernice has marched in opposition to gay marriage; Dr. King’s own daughter does not support civil rights for homosexuals.  Our Torturer-in-Chief gets a second term as President while Jimmy Carter, the great promoter of human rights and Nobel Peace laureate, was not re-elected and is reviled throughout the conservative South.  Cindy Sheehan is arrested by der Führer’s Gestapo for wearing an anti-war t-shirt.  American soldiers have murdered 30,000 Iraqis for the purpose of establishing a military and economic base in the Middle East.  Habeas corpus has been suspended.  It’s not acceptable in the United States to be labeled "racist," but it’s perfectly fine to be a slimy racist if you can duck the label (i.e. the signifier is problematic but the signified is not).  And of course it’s not racist to hate "radical Islamists" because they’re the enemy.  Mind you it’s still perfectly acceptable to hate women.  It’s still cool to hate gays.

    Where is the left, where are its calls for change?  Our "liberals" in Congress give the radical right free reign at home and abroad.  Howard Dean is the popular voice of the American left–and he has been marginalized!  Free speech is a luxury not affordable in times of war, and we’ve entered a perpetual state of war.  Voters (especially and disproportionately black voters) are disenfranchised, and only Jesse Jackson seems to care; Jesse Jackson is just a relic of the past.  We have no Jack Kennedy, we have no Martin Luther King.  The gap between the rich and the poor grows, social mobility shrinks, and Ralph Nader is insignificant–and worst of all this is not his fault: America has spoken, time and time again, and We. Do. Not. Care.  It’s hard to be a fiery revolutionary when your strongest ally is Jon Stewart.  And so human beings across the globe suffer.

    THIS is the state of our Union.

  • It will probably damage my credibility with some folks to start my guest blogging by admitting that, after five years of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and incompetence, Bush is still able to provoke not only my disgust, but my disappointment. The president’s tone, with it’s unique combination of put-upon entitlement and Texas frat-boy banter, drives me up the wall, so I haven’t actually watched a state of the union address since 2000. But the Fourth Estate faked me out last night, with a slew of wire reports that pulled his speciously intriguing U.S. Addicted to Oil line out of its context of tired solutions and empty promises.  Clean coal? It doesn’t require an expertise in environmental studies to understand that a suggested move from one, non-renewable resource to another is non-responsive to the problem of "addiction." Imagine if Bush’s speech writers had left out the word, clean, and claimed an exciting new solution to oil dependence: coal! Nineteenth-century politicians, in their graves, would have scratched their heads in confusion as to why this was news. (Bush, of course, doesn’t have to worry about whether clean coal is actually clean, since as Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes’s recent pro-Bush biography notes, a private meeting with science fiction novelist Michael Crichton reaffirmed Bush’s belief that global warming does not exist).    Supporting technological innovation, on the other hand, sounds grand, just as it did in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address.

    The real eye-roller, for me, however, was the promotion of ethanol. A number of years ago, I had the opportunity to watch a couple of DC lobbyists show what they could do for clients by presenting the demonstration they had put together for an ethanol interest group. I’ll never forget one, a friend of a prominent Midwestern Democratic Congressman, who looked near tears as he said, "What could be more American than corn?" The idea of drawing energy from the fields brings joy to many subsidy supported corn and soy farmers (a significant number of whom profess to hate Welfare and other "government hand-outs").  Too bad Ethanol’s status as an energy-saving, renewable resource is bunk. Simply put, ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides. Having read a number of articles (which I’m too lazy to look up right now) connecting obesity and diabetes to the increasing use of price-supported corn syrup in everyday food items, I looked to see whether I was alone in my corn-hating conspiracy theories (they’ll love this post in Iowa), and found this great rant on the Daily Kos. Numerous other articles also detail the link provided by agricultural subsidies between the disparate problems of obesity and the irrational promotion of ethanol.

    Now, In my most silver lining thinking, I would have said that the upside to Bush’s professed belief in market-based solutions would be the potential rejection of a solution that is not only non-responsive to the problem (which never stopped him before), but anti-competitive. It would be disingenuous of me, however, to claim surprise at Bush’s jumping on the ethanol band wagon after his hypocritical support of steel tariffs, etc. What could be more American than corn, indeed. Sooooweeee little piggies!

  • George Bush spoke of freedom repeatedly during his SOTU address – seventeen times by some counts.  The gist of his freedom laced message was that he would do anything and everything , anywhere and everywhere, to protect the freedom of America and Americans. Yet minutes before he began his speech, Cindy Sheehan the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, was hauled off the Capitol building in handcuffs for being seen in a T-shirt with a message which read "2245 Dead. How many more?"  Another woman, Beverly Young , wife of Florida Representative Bill Young (R), also wore a T-shirt with a message. Hers read "Support The Troops – Defending Our Freedom".   She too was removed from the gallery by the Capitol Police. Note however, the difference in the behavior of the two women and their treatment at the hands of the police.  So ALL T-shirts with messages violate the dress code but only SOME messages violate the penal code – the distinction to be made by the "freedom loving" President’s loyal foot soldiers !

    "Cindy Sheehan, who had been invited to attend State of the Union address by Representative Lynn Woolsey (news, bio, voting record), the California Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, did not put the "dangerous" shirt on for the event. The woman whose protest last summer outside the president’s ranchette in Crawford, Texas, drew international attention to the anti-war movement, had been wearing it at events earlier in the day.

    Indeed, as Sheehan, who had passed through Capitol security monitors without incident, noted, "I knew that I couldn’t disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn’t want to be disruptive out of respect for her."

    No one has suggested that Sheehan was in any way disruptive. So why was she arrested?  Because, as Sheehan recounts, she was identified as a dissident.

    Before the arrest, media reports buzzed about official concern regarding Sheehan’s presence. And, as she was being dragged from a room where the president would shortly extol the virtues of freedom and liberty, police explicitly told Sheehan that she was being removed "because you were protesting."

    Capitol Police and other security officials, whose rough treatment of Sheehan was witnessed by dozens of people who attended the State of the Union event, said she was arrested for "unlawful conduct." Conveniently, she was held until after the president finished speaking.

    Is there really a law against wearing a political t-shirt to the State of the Union address? No.

    The Capitol Police do have protocols that are followed in order to avoid "incidents" during major events. But their own actions Tuesday night confirm that Sheehan was singled out for rough justice.

    Beverly Young, the wife of Representative C.W. Bill Young (news, bio, voting record), a Florida Republican who chairs the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, showed for the State of the Union address up sporting a t-shirt that read, "Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom." When Capitol Police asked her to leave the gallery about her wearing clothing that featured a political message, Mrs. Young says, she argued loudly with officers and called one of them "an idiot."

    But Mrs. Young was not handcuffed. She was not dragged from the Capitol. She was not arrested. She was not jailed.

    (more…)

  • For my first February guest-post, some local news for you Houstonians out there:

    I find this very surprising (ESPN).  Do you know which NBA player has the best-selling jersey in China?  Surely it’s Yao Ming, 7’6" center for the Houston Rockets, right?  Well, it’s a Houston Rocket, but it’s his teammate (since only last year) Tracy McGrady.  Allen Iverson is #2, which is not *that* surprising since he’s probably the most popular player here in the States or in the world at large.  Native son Yao Ming is #3.  Why is T-Mac #1?  My guess: China roots for the Houston Rockets because they’re Yao’s team, and people like McGrady because he’s (a) the best player on China’s adopted team and (b) the most entertaining player on the team.

    –Joe

  • It wasn’t idyllic enough for the Danes to have a fairy tale existence – Hans Christian Andersen, peace, prosperity, milk, butter, cheese and Lego.  They had to get into the middle of this !

    "From the burning of its flag to a boycott of its brands of butter and cookies, Denmark is feeling Islamic outrage over newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

    Angered by the drawings, masked Palestinian gunmen briefly took over a European Union office in Gaza on Monday. Islamists in Bahrain urged street demonstrations, while Syria called for the offenders to be punished. A Saudi company paid thousands of dollars for an ad thanking a business that snubbed Danish products.

    The anger is reminiscent of the 1989 wrath that followed publication of The Satanic Verses, the Salman Rushdie novel that radicals said insulted Islam. Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a death sentence against the British writer.

    (more…)

  • That Red and Blue divide in our national politics may be more of a Black and White one, suggest studies of political behavior. Society for Personality and Social Psychology had a conference last week that showcased several provocative psychological studies about the nature of political belief.

    Some highlights from the studies:

    Emory University psychologist Drew Westen put self-identified Democratic and Republican partisans in brain scanners and asked them to evaluate negative information about various candidates. Both groups were quick to spot inconsistency and hypocrisy — but only in candidates they opposed.When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said.

    Another study presented at the conference, which was in Palm Springs, Calif., explored relationships between racial bias and political affiliation by analyzing self-reported beliefs, voting patterns and the results of psychological tests that measure implicit attitudes — subtle stereotypes people hold about various groups.

    That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.

    Republicans are not happy of course.

    Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said he disagreed with the study’s conclusions but that it was difficult to offer a detailed critique, as the research had not yet been published and he could not review the methodology. He also questioned whether the researchers themselves had implicit biases — against Republicans — noting that Nosek (University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek) and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats.

    "There are a lot of factors that go into political affiliation, and snap determinations may be interesting for an academic study, but the real-world application seems somewhat murky," Jones said.

    Nosek said that though the risk of bias among researchers was "a reasonable question," the study provided empirical results that could — and would — be tested by other groups: "All we did was compare questions that people could answer any way they wanted," Nosek said, as he explained why he felt personal views could not have influenced the outcome. "We had no direct contact with participants."

    The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces — evidence of implicit bias. But districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush.

    "Obviously, such research does not speak at all to the question of the prejudice level of the president," said Banaji, "but it does show that George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice."

    "If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial," he (Jon Krosnick, a psychologist and political scientist at Stanford University) said. "We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, ‘This takes me aback,’ they are ignoring a huge volume of research."

  • The month of February is going to be a busy one for me. I may not be able to blog with as much regularity as I have done so far.  Two guest authors have kindly agreed to help out. Joining me on Accidental Blogger will be Joe (who also blogs at Unreal City ) and Anna. 

    Joe has been a loyal reader since the early days of this blog. Anna and I know each other from our days at Dissemination.org which launched my blogging career. I expect both authors to be interesting and provocative. They are well informed and opinionated – good attributes for bloggers. I am quite sure that readers will enjoy their style and substance. Joe and Anna will start posting here from February 1st or whenever they are ready. I would like to welcome them both to Accidental Blogger.

  • I wonder why we are not winning hearts and minds in the middle east in spite of Geroge Bush and Karen Hughes’ best efforts.

    U.S. accused of jailing women to find relatives

    Their husbands and fathers were sought as terrorist suspects

    By NANCY A. YOUSSEF
    Knight Ridder Tribune News

    BAGHDAD, IRAQ – The U.S. Army has been detaining Iraqi women to help track down husbands or fathers who are suspected terrorists, according to documents released Friday and an interview with a female detainee who was released Thursday after four months in prison.

    A series of e-mails written by U.S. soldiers and an internal Army memo, which were released Friday in response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, describe two cases of women who were imprisoned because U.S. officials wanted information about their husbands.

    The Iraqi woman said Friday that she and eight other female detainees in her cell had often talked among themselves. She discovered that all of them were being held because U.S. officials had suspected their male relatives of having ties to terrorism. In some cases, men in their families were killed during U.S. raids, the woman alleged.

    The woman, whose voice trembled as she told her story, said she didn’t want to be named because she feared that she or a member of her family would be arrested.

    The rest of the story, here.

  • George Bush reminds us every day that our "real" mission in the middle east is to spread freedom and democracy and to enable the long oppressed citizenry there to "speak their minds". What happens when the people speak buy WE longer want to speak with the people because they did not speak the way we wanted them to speak?

    Democracy is indeed rearing its head in the middle east – in Iraq, in Egypt and now in the Palestinian territory – but not exactly the way Bush had hoped. All three have put Islamic parties in power (majority power in Iraqi and Palestinian parliaments). A show of purple fingers is exhilaratng until those fingers poke you in the eye.  Something tells me that we won’t hear much about the Palestinian elections and Hamas during next Tuesday’s State of the Union address, athought these may have been among the most freely held elections in that region in a long time. And let’s not forget Latin America, where voters recently put socialist leaning governments in power in Chile and in Bolivia, whose leaders are more likely to consult with Hugo Chavez on matters of governance than with George Bush.

    Cragg Hines of the Houston Chronicle asks if Bush can make lemonade from this lemon.

    Well, well, it seems you have to be careful what you wish for with this democracy business. A coca farmer is jefe in Bolivia. A muddle of mullah-led Shias is attempting to run the political show in Baghdad. And, most ominously, Hamas sits atop the Palestinian heap.

    That may all be a little more liberty and freedom than President Bush had in mind. No matter how positive a face he attempts to put on the Palestinian voting, the result is political legitimization of an armed Islamic faction that the United States and the European Union classifies as a terrorist organization and that openly calls for the destruction of Israel.

    For a more detailed analysis of the same, read Juan Cole in Salon.com.

    "The stunning victory of the militant Muslim fundamentalist Hamas Party in the Palestinian elections underlines the central contradictions in the Bush administration’s policies toward the Middle East. Bush pushes for elections, confusing them with democracy, but seems blind to the dangers of right-wing populism. At the same time, he continually undermines the moderate and secular forces in the region by acting high-handedly or allowing his clients to do so. As a result, Sunni fundamentalist parties, some with ties to violent cells, have emerged as key players in Iraq, Egypt and Palestine.

    Democracy depends not just on elections but on a rule of law, on stable institutions, on basic economic security for the population, and on checks and balances that forestall a tyranny of the majority. Elections in the absence of this key societal context can produce authoritarian regimes and abuses as easily as they can produce genuine people power. Bush is on the whole unwilling to invest sufficiently in these key institutions and practices abroad. And by either creating or failing to deal with hated foreign occupations, he has sown the seeds for militant Islamist movements that gain popularity because of their nationalist credentials. …"

  • I had been toying with the idea of this post for a while and today I discovered that the Sleepy Kid has beaten me to it. Described here are some details of an interesting discovery (almost ten years ago, but only recently in the news) in neuroscience with possible implications for ethics, morality and possibly the development of language. It appears that the area of the brain that is stimulated when we ourselves perform a particular action is also stimulated when we watch, hear or feel someone ELSE perform the same action.

    "The researchers, led by Giacomo Rizzolatti, a neuroscientist at the University of Parma, had earlier noticed the same strange phenomenon with peanuts. The same brain cells fired when the monkey watched humans or other monkeys bring peanuts to their mouths as when the monkey itself brought a peanut to its mouth. Later, the scientists found cells that fired when the monkey broke open a peanut or heard someone break a peanut. The same thing happened with bananas, raisins and all kinds of other objects.

    "It took us several years to believe what we were seeing," Dr. Rizzolatti said in a recent interview. The monkey brain contains a special class of cells, called mirror neurons, that fire when the animal sees or hears an action and when the animal carries out the same action on its own.

    The human brain has multiple mirror neuron systems that specialize in carrying out and understanding not just the actions of others but their intentions, the social meaning of their behavior and their emotions…. "

    Read more about this and its social and evolutionary implications here in another ( long !) article by V.S. Ramachandran

    "Researchers at UCLA found that cells in the human anterior cingulate, which normally fire when you poke the patient with a needle ("pain neurons"), will also fire when the patient watches another patient being poked. The mirror neurons, it would seem, dissolve the barrier between self and others.  I call them "empathy neurons" or "Dalai Llama neurons". (I wonder how the mirror neurons of a masochist or sadist would respond to another person being poked.) Dissolving the "self vs. other" barrier is the basis of many ethical systems, especially eastern philosophical and mystical traditions. This research implies that mirror neurons can be used to provide rational rather than religious grounds for ethics (although we must be careful not to commit the is/ought fallacy)."

    Is this also why we yawn when others are yawning ? And did you know that contagious yawning may be a useful way of locating a potential mate – at least for some humans and penguins?

    Ranking empathy

    "Only now are researchers beginning to understand why we yawn, when we yawn and why we yawn back. Steven M. Platek, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at Drexel, studies the act of contagious yawning, something done only by people and other primates.

    In his first study, published in 2004, the former jazz guitar major (he wasn’t doing so well and switched to psychology), used a psychological test to rank people on their empathic feelings. He found that participants who didn’t score high on compassion didn’t yawn back…  Now he’s studying yawning in those with brain disorders, such as autism and schizophrenia, in which victims have difficulty connecting emotionally with others

    One species of penguins yawns as part of mating. Although the act itself is automatic, it can be kind of sexy, the researchers say. Platek spoke to one person who would go to a bar and yawn; if the woman he was eyeing yawned back, he knew she was watching him and would go over to her and start chatting."

  • I haven't read anything very noteworthy (or blogworthy) of late, except some of my favorite mystery writers (I might blog about them some day). Instead, I will discuss two books – both quite remarkable, which I read some time ago. They  chronicle the experiences (one current, the other from a bygone era) of two communities in diaspora, with vastly disparate fortunes. The first one deals with the sad plight of European Gypsies (I am using the term Gypsy as it has been used in the book; the preferred term is Roma or Romani) and the other, the obscure but idyllic history of Indian Jews.  Black and white photographs lend quaint appeal to both books. This is Book I of a two part book review.

    Bury Me Standing – The Gypsies and Their Journey  by Isabel Fonseca

    Consider the title of the book and some of the chapter headings: The Least Obedient People in The World, Slavery, A Social Problem, The Devouring, The Temptation to Exist etc. and you can tell that this is a harrowing tale. The book opens with the words of a Gypsy poet from Poland and what follows is an elegy.

    Numerous fables obscure the origin of Gypsies, many of them fabricated by the Gypsies themselves – expert fabulists, as the author discovered. Language being the longest memory of man, there is evidence – accepted by most historians and philologists, that Gypsies (or the Roma) migrated to Europe from India through Iran. The Gypsy language Romani, closely resembles Farsi and north Indian dialects in its syntax and vocabulary. Why a large group of Gypsies left India more than a thousand years ago is not certain. Speculation ranges from 1) to become musicians at the court of the Persian emperor 2) as blacksmiths hired by a returning Greek / Persian army  3) being nomads, they just went looking for new pastures. Since the Gypsies were (and still are) mostly illiterate, did not own land and kept to themselves, there is no accurate record of the migration.  Another intriguing practice which points to a Hindu/Indian past, has to do with a Christian ritual. There are hints in Persian court history of the era that the Indian Gypsies were devotees of the formidable black Hindu goddess, Kali.  The festival of the Black Madonna of Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer in Lyon , France, is devoutly celebrated by European Gypsies. Could it be a Christian substitute for the Hindu worship of Kali? The Black Madonna's origins may lie in Celtic – Egyptian (some think Indian) myths, but the embrace of a dark Christian goddess figure by new converts may have been an acceptable way to keep alive part of an ancient heritage which had to be abandoned upon conversion to Christianity.

    "Bury Me Standing" is a remarkable account of Gypsy life in Europe. Isabel Fonseca writes with  informed passion and level headed compassion. She does not yield to the temptation of dwelling on the lurid and exotic aspects of Gypsy life – caravans, magic, fortune telling and the like. Instead her dignified curiosity is about their lot as a scattered, neglected and marginalized ethnic minority in the heart of "civilized" Mittel Europa.

    Fonseca lived and traveled among the Roma communities between the years of 1991-1995 – in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania and Albania among others. The focus of her investigation were the human and civil rights issues affecting Gypsies in post communist societies of eastern bloc countries. What she discovered was a poor, uneducated, mistreated, vilified, suspect and often abused minority group, whose trials and tribulation through centuries had culminated during WWII in tragedy and horror in the prison camps of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Bergen-Belsen and Dachau. Despite their terrible sufferings at the hands of the murderous Nazi regime, Gypsies subsequently garnered little sympathy from the white Christian majority in the countries of their domicile. Unlike the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, who had a clear concept of Jewish identity and the promise of a homeland embedded in history, religious liturgy and in the ideals of Zionism, the uneducated, peripatetic Gypsies had no idea of what constitutes a "home land" or an ethnic identity. While most Jews, after WWII left Europe for Israel or the USA, the Gypsies returned to their former "homelands" mostly in Soviet dominated eastern Europe.  There, they pretty much went back to their miserable existence of living as perpetual outsiders and undesirables.

    There are several reasons why I use the word Holocaust in the title.  For one, there indeed was a holocaust – an estimated two million Gypsies perished in Nazi death camps. Lacking eloquent and organized spokespersons, the plight of the Gypsies has been slow to penetrate the world's consciousness.  One bit of information that surprised and disappointed me was that some of the opposition to recognizing the Gypsy genocide as a second holocaust, came from a few Jewish Holocaust survivors, on the grounds that Hitler did not mean to kill ALL Gypsies ! Most prominent among the objectors was Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel.  The induction of Gypsies into the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. happened only after Wiesel stepped down as the chairperson in 1986. Among the millions of prisoners who suffered and died in Hitler's concentration camps, only Jews and Gypsies were singled out for special humiliation based on racial, religious and cultural identities. Gypsy adults and children, like Jews, were subjected to pseudo Nazi science of racial Eugenics, including the notorious "twins" studies of Josef Mengele. Although the "Jewish Question" was of greater urgency to the Nazis, a fair amount of attention was paid to answering the question, "Who is a Gypsy?" determined by blood and ancestry. Both groups were suspect and objects of contempt. Historically, both had been accused of "poisoning the well", "causing the plague" and "killing Christian children". In the twentieth century, the reckless Teutonic slanders that made the two Holocausts possible, were 1) the Jew was given to hatching  "international conspiracies" and 2) the Gypsy was a "congenital criminal".

    With the help of advocates like the author, progressive leaders like Lech Walesa of Poland and Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic and the emergence of educated, politically savvy Gypsy leaders and spokespersons, the last two decades have seen some improvement in the lives of Gypsies in parts of Europe. But it is still a dismal life for them in the less prosperous/progressive countries such as Romania, Bulgaria and Albania, where social and economic inequities, along with casual violence, contribute towards a precarious existence.

    Isabel Fonseca says in her book, "When I began my research I had it in mind that the Gypsies were 'the new Jews' of Eastern Europe. But they are not the new Jews: the Gypsies, alongside the Jews, are ancient scapegoats [in Europe]". 

    And what about the title of the book?  Though it sounds like a line from a folk song or a tragic ancient verse, it actually was a telling remark made by a modern day Gypsy activist friend of the author:

    " Manush Romanov always had something memorable to say, especially, and sweetly, in farewell. Once at the end of a visit in Sophia in which he was practically in tears for his Gypsies, he dramatically called after me, "Prohasar man opre pirende – sa muro djiben semas opre chengende" _ "Bury me standing. I've been on my knees all my life." "

  • It’s not the Hurricanes. Not the Hornets and thank goodness, not Houstonians. It is "1836" !  The city’s new addition to pro sport, the  Major League Soccer team will be known as Houston 1836. The team colors will be white, orange and black.

    The choice of name is a bit puzzling, until you hear the explanation.  Then it makes sense. It is a nod to Texas history, Houston’s history and to European sporting nomenclature.

    The name’s main reference is the year Houston was founded by John and Augustus Allen on the banks of Buffalo Bayou. It also marks the year Texas declared its independence from Mexico, the Battle of the Alamo and the defeat of General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna’s Mexican army at the hands of General Sam Houston in the Battle of San Jacinto during the Texas Revolution.

    Most popular in Europe, particularly Germany, the style of naming a team after a year is considered a soccer staple. German teams such as Hannover 96 (1896), Bayer 04 Leverkusen, FC Schalke 04 (both 1904) and FSV Mainz 05 (1905) are among the most popular in Europe. The style migrated to other parts of the world, including Latin America, in the early 1900s.

    And closer to home, the San Francisco 49ers – commemorating the Gold Rush of 1849. How do I like 1836? What will be it be called on the streets?  1836 or Thirty Sixers?  Either way, I like it less than Astros, perhaps as much as Rockets and much, much better than Texans.                                        311xinlinegallery