(click above for article)
Events in the Middle East and elsewhere are being increasingly shaped by the crowd. Since the French Revolution, the crowd has emerged as a legitimate force, not always with happy consequences.
Showing posts with label the French Revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the French Revolution. Show all posts
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Ochlocracy
'Egypt is Free,' crowds chant after Mubarak quits - Yahoo! News: "The protests were started by a small core of secular, liberal youth activists organizing on the Internet who only a few months earlier struggled to gather more than 100 demonstrators at a time. But their work through Facebook and other social network sites over the past few years built greater awareness and bitterness among Egyptians over issues like police abuse and corruption.
'Facebook brought down the regime,' said Sally Toma, one of the main protest organizers.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
This Associated Press report is hard to believe. How can anyone be so naive?
Let's see what they are saying: A bunch of children on Facebook enlightened their elders (who rarely use social networks) and the poor (who are rarely, if ever) connected as to what was going on in their own country, such was the secret efficiency with which the regime had been operating. Of course, before these kids used Tweeter and Facebook, the average Egyptian lived in complete ignorance of what was happening: they knew Mubarak to be a nice guy, and then suddenly they see on Facebook (which they rarely use, remember) that that was not true. A people's coup takes place in Tunisia, the kids (left alone by the hideous regime to do their missionary work, remember) congregate people, and, well, the rest is contemporary history.
Anyone who swallows this should stop taking hashish.
There has been a persistent pattern of anti-government protests by the 'mob' (a French innovation) since the Berlin Wall collapsed. In Bangladesh, a democratically elected government was brought down after three months of intense street agitation amounting nearly to civil war - one in which the people had no interest whatsoever. In the Philippines, the democratically elected government of Joseph Estrada, the people's darling, was brought down by the middle- and upper-classes (it was dubbed a 'cell phone' revolution; the people lost because at the time sell phones were too expensive!). In Indonesia, thanks to IMF mismanagement, a mob overthrew General Suharto (and investment has never recovered while corruption has remained the same). In Kyrgyzstan, an autocratic government was overthrown by a mob of a couple of thousand, an event repeated a few years later against a democratically elected government. In Tunisia, a mob overthrows a dictator; a bigger mob overthrows the president of Egypt. In China, a mob had tried something similar, but not comparable (see J.M.Roberts' History of the 20th Century). In Iran, a mob tried to overthrow the regime.
Rule by the mob - ochlocracy - is here.
Mind you, the mob has always been there, wherever cities had sprung up. We remember the Roman mob that had to be appeased with 'panim et circenses'. And Lisan al-Din Ibn Khatib's (1313 - 75) advice to the Caliph Harun al-Rashid was this: "The common people may be simple, but they are quite powerful, especially when they act collectively. If the king is faced by them as a rioting crowd, he should be diplomatic with them and stick firmly to his position until they disperse." And then? "The king should strike hard at them and leave no room for mercy towards them."
But what is new is that the mob is no longer seen as illegitimate: a rabble is held to be legitimate just because it is a disgruntled group, as opposed to an individual. The mob, and mobocracy, is here to stay, thanks to the French Revolution, and western ideology. The Americans have been caught on the back foot, but it was their ideology of democracy and people power and mobocracy that has unleashed the mob.
How long will it be before the mob becomes illegitimate again? For that we have to await the decline of western civilisation itself. What these Egyptians have done, is to betray the values of their own, benign civilisation by espousing western ideas of freedom and equality - values observed in the breach, as we have seen.
'Facebook brought down the regime,' said Sally Toma, one of the main protest organizers.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
This Associated Press report is hard to believe. How can anyone be so naive?
Let's see what they are saying: A bunch of children on Facebook enlightened their elders (who rarely use social networks) and the poor (who are rarely, if ever) connected as to what was going on in their own country, such was the secret efficiency with which the regime had been operating. Of course, before these kids used Tweeter and Facebook, the average Egyptian lived in complete ignorance of what was happening: they knew Mubarak to be a nice guy, and then suddenly they see on Facebook (which they rarely use, remember) that that was not true. A people's coup takes place in Tunisia, the kids (left alone by the hideous regime to do their missionary work, remember) congregate people, and, well, the rest is contemporary history.
Anyone who swallows this should stop taking hashish.
There has been a persistent pattern of anti-government protests by the 'mob' (a French innovation) since the Berlin Wall collapsed. In Bangladesh, a democratically elected government was brought down after three months of intense street agitation amounting nearly to civil war - one in which the people had no interest whatsoever. In the Philippines, the democratically elected government of Joseph Estrada, the people's darling, was brought down by the middle- and upper-classes (it was dubbed a 'cell phone' revolution; the people lost because at the time sell phones were too expensive!). In Indonesia, thanks to IMF mismanagement, a mob overthrew General Suharto (and investment has never recovered while corruption has remained the same). In Kyrgyzstan, an autocratic government was overthrown by a mob of a couple of thousand, an event repeated a few years later against a democratically elected government. In Tunisia, a mob overthrows a dictator; a bigger mob overthrows the president of Egypt. In China, a mob had tried something similar, but not comparable (see J.M.Roberts' History of the 20th Century). In Iran, a mob tried to overthrow the regime.
Rule by the mob - ochlocracy - is here.
Mind you, the mob has always been there, wherever cities had sprung up. We remember the Roman mob that had to be appeased with 'panim et circenses'. And Lisan al-Din Ibn Khatib's (1313 - 75) advice to the Caliph Harun al-Rashid was this: "The common people may be simple, but they are quite powerful, especially when they act collectively. If the king is faced by them as a rioting crowd, he should be diplomatic with them and stick firmly to his position until they disperse." And then? "The king should strike hard at them and leave no room for mercy towards them."
But what is new is that the mob is no longer seen as illegitimate: a rabble is held to be legitimate just because it is a disgruntled group, as opposed to an individual. The mob, and mobocracy, is here to stay, thanks to the French Revolution, and western ideology. The Americans have been caught on the back foot, but it was their ideology of democracy and people power and mobocracy that has unleashed the mob.
How long will it be before the mob becomes illegitimate again? For that we have to await the decline of western civilisation itself. What these Egyptians have done, is to betray the values of their own, benign civilisation by espousing western ideas of freedom and equality - values observed in the breach, as we have seen.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Soldier and His Girl, or Nationalism Castrated
She was a fifteen-year-old nationalist (nothing out of the ordinary about that; I've even known ten-year-old nationalists). She went for a drive with her boyfriend and they stopped at the lake. I hope he wasn't getting a blow job, for at one point she bounded out of the car and went for an angry walk. Had he suggested something more lewd?
Well, depends on your point of view. All he had said was that he was going to join the army. He was lucky she didn't bite off his pecker.
Now, Bengali nationalists hate the army: which is odd, for nationalism and the military have always been grand bedfellows. The French Revolution created the people's army, first seen in action on a more modest scale during the birth of American nationalism: hence the American love of the military. German nationalism reached its peak under Bismarck and a higher peak under Hitler: in both cases, the militarization of society was a hallmark of nationalism. An English friend of mine (who was twice my age, and died in the '80s) used to tell me how during the First World War, young women would bring flowers to young men not in uniform: implying that they lacked balls. Lawrence's writing is full of the associations between nationalism and the military.
Of course, ours is a bogus nationalism: words never travel, for the way of life that constitutes their meaning never travels. So, we have a bogus nationalism and a bogus democracy. Throughout South Asia, these things are bogus, as many a scholar has pointed out. (A nationalism that finds expression in love for a foreign nation, a foreign culture, a foreign religion is one phony nationalism.)
Of course, in Bangladesh, nationalists have a special beef against the military: the military (and politicians) murdered the Father of the Nation, much as Zeus cut off the genitals of Cronos. In Greek myth, the foam that the dick caused in the waters gave rise to Venus; in our case, unfortunately, it gave rise to the Daughter of the Nation (no Venus, unless Venus in Furs without the looks).
Now, she was interned for a year by the army: hence there is an enduring hatred between nationalists and the military.
As for our fifteen-year-old nationalist, I really don't know if she accepted her hussar, or reproduced little nationalists in her turn.
Well, depends on your point of view. All he had said was that he was going to join the army. He was lucky she didn't bite off his pecker.
Now, Bengali nationalists hate the army: which is odd, for nationalism and the military have always been grand bedfellows. The French Revolution created the people's army, first seen in action on a more modest scale during the birth of American nationalism: hence the American love of the military. German nationalism reached its peak under Bismarck and a higher peak under Hitler: in both cases, the militarization of society was a hallmark of nationalism. An English friend of mine (who was twice my age, and died in the '80s) used to tell me how during the First World War, young women would bring flowers to young men not in uniform: implying that they lacked balls. Lawrence's writing is full of the associations between nationalism and the military.
Of course, ours is a bogus nationalism: words never travel, for the way of life that constitutes their meaning never travels. So, we have a bogus nationalism and a bogus democracy. Throughout South Asia, these things are bogus, as many a scholar has pointed out. (A nationalism that finds expression in love for a foreign nation, a foreign culture, a foreign religion is one phony nationalism.)
Of course, in Bangladesh, nationalists have a special beef against the military: the military (and politicians) murdered the Father of the Nation, much as Zeus cut off the genitals of Cronos. In Greek myth, the foam that the dick caused in the waters gave rise to Venus; in our case, unfortunately, it gave rise to the Daughter of the Nation (no Venus, unless Venus in Furs without the looks).
Now, she was interned for a year by the army: hence there is an enduring hatred between nationalists and the military.
As for our fifteen-year-old nationalist, I really don't know if she accepted her hussar, or reproduced little nationalists in her turn.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
After the Revolution
"Iranians are too sophisticated to be ruled for ever by a clutch of old men in turbans. The regime has been illiberal and authoritarian. It is often vicious in its suppression of opponents and its disregard for human rights. Iran has the highest rate of judicial executions per head in the world."
- The Economist, 20th June 2009
The Germans were too sophisticated to be ruled by a short corporal. They were illiberal (to put it mildly) and authoritarian (ahem!).
The excelled in everything: from sophisticated composers ranging from Bach, through Beethoven and Brahms, and – whoops! – Wagner, to philosophers like Kant and Nietzsche.
Yet it took a less sophisticated people – the Russians – to stop them.
After the Iranian revolution, the revolutionaries found they had no plan: no one had thought of what kind of regime would replace the Shah's. The only people who had a blueprint – and one from heaven – were the mullahs. Otherwise, the nation would have descended into chaos.
It has been estimated that 11% of Iranians took part in the revolution; the corresponding figure for the Russian revolution is 9%; and for the grand daddy of them all, the French revolution, it is 6%.
All three revolutions had one thing in common: no one knew what to replace the previous regime with, except the mullahs, the Bolsheviks and Napoleon.
- The Economist, 20th June 2009
The Germans were too sophisticated to be ruled by a short corporal. They were illiberal (to put it mildly) and authoritarian (ahem!).
The excelled in everything: from sophisticated composers ranging from Bach, through Beethoven and Brahms, and – whoops! – Wagner, to philosophers like Kant and Nietzsche.
Yet it took a less sophisticated people – the Russians – to stop them.
After the Iranian revolution, the revolutionaries found they had no plan: no one had thought of what kind of regime would replace the Shah's. The only people who had a blueprint – and one from heaven – were the mullahs. Otherwise, the nation would have descended into chaos.
It has been estimated that 11% of Iranians took part in the revolution; the corresponding figure for the Russian revolution is 9%; and for the grand daddy of them all, the French revolution, it is 6%.
All three revolutions had one thing in common: no one knew what to replace the previous regime with, except the mullahs, the Bolsheviks and Napoleon.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
How many million make millions?
"Millions with flowers in their hands while (sic) toddlers holding their mothers' hands or riding their fathers' shoulders joined (sic) the Shaheed Minars that turned the monuments into the human sea.
Barefeet (sic), wearing black ribbons and clutching bouquets of flowers, thousands of people from all walks of life approached the Central Shaheed Minar in the capital to pay homage to the martyrs of the language movement, observing International Mother Language Day.
The entire Dhaka University campus and its surrounding areas turned into a human sea as youths, freedom fighters, politicians, foreigners and others walked towards the memorial with due reverence in queues, many of them singing in chorus 'Amar Bhaiyer Rokte Rangano Ekushey February Ami Ki Bhulite Pari.'" http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=76967 )
This is a description of the yearly ritual held on 21st February in Bangladesh. It is a nationalist ritual.
How many people attended?
In the first paragraph, we read about "millions with flowers": if millions moved across Bangladesh, how is it that we haven't seen any signs of this?
And what the "millions of flowers" – where's the stench? Surely, such a large number of flowers must leave an awful pong behind, and, indeed, where did so many flowers come from?
And what kinds of flowers were they: roses, tulips, China roses....or water hyacinths? Only if the latter, could there have been "millions with flowers".
Then the number shrinks when we reach Dhaka: " thousands of people".
That's much better: but I personally don't know anyone who went.
And since I don't have a TV set, I couldn't analyze the pictures to see what the class composition of the "thousands" was: how many rickshaw pullers were there, garment-factory girls, street vendors, farmers....?
We are only told: " thousands of people from all walks of life ", and that's all. But the writer gives himself away in the next paragraph: " youths, freedom fighters, politicians, foreigners and others". Where were the sans-culottes? The "others'? These sound like a residue, a substratum, a scum, an afterthought...surely not the people? More like the 'cetera' after 'et'!
And this furtive nocturnal gathering is supposed to be a national festival: who is the nation, then? A couple of thousand insomniacs?
It has been estimated that 7% of the French participated in the French Revolution, and 11% Iranians in the Iranian one.
Suppose even 1% of our people came out at midnight on 21st February: that would be an impressive army – no, a veritable horde – of 1,500,000 (the size of roughly China's army). But the Daily Star article clearly said "millions with flowers". How many make "millions"? 5 million? 10 million? That would mean an astounding 3 to 6% of the population! Half a French revolution 56 years after the event! Surely every satellite would have picked out such a migration? Surely every newspaper and TV channel would have broadcast the mass of humanity? Not to mention all those flowers.
So it seems even the middle classes didn't come out – they were snoring.
Not only that, I haven't heard of any other country or people who celebrated a so-called International Day – it seems that neither the national, nor the international, turned up for the International Mother Language Day.
The chap who penned that piece should take up fiction – clearly his forte. Not reportage.
In a novel perhaps he can answer the question: who is the nation (and in a sequel, he can delineate the 'International")?
Barefeet (sic), wearing black ribbons and clutching bouquets of flowers, thousands of people from all walks of life approached the Central Shaheed Minar in the capital to pay homage to the martyrs of the language movement, observing International Mother Language Day.
The entire Dhaka University campus and its surrounding areas turned into a human sea as youths, freedom fighters, politicians, foreigners and others walked towards the memorial with due reverence in queues, many of them singing in chorus 'Amar Bhaiyer Rokte Rangano Ekushey February Ami Ki Bhulite Pari.'" http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=76967 )
This is a description of the yearly ritual held on 21st February in Bangladesh. It is a nationalist ritual.
How many people attended?
In the first paragraph, we read about "millions with flowers": if millions moved across Bangladesh, how is it that we haven't seen any signs of this?
And what the "millions of flowers" – where's the stench? Surely, such a large number of flowers must leave an awful pong behind, and, indeed, where did so many flowers come from?
And what kinds of flowers were they: roses, tulips, China roses....or water hyacinths? Only if the latter, could there have been "millions with flowers".
Then the number shrinks when we reach Dhaka: " thousands of people".
That's much better: but I personally don't know anyone who went.
And since I don't have a TV set, I couldn't analyze the pictures to see what the class composition of the "thousands" was: how many rickshaw pullers were there, garment-factory girls, street vendors, farmers....?
We are only told: " thousands of people from all walks of life ", and that's all. But the writer gives himself away in the next paragraph: " youths, freedom fighters, politicians, foreigners and others". Where were the sans-culottes? The "others'? These sound like a residue, a substratum, a scum, an afterthought...surely not the people? More like the 'cetera' after 'et'!
And this furtive nocturnal gathering is supposed to be a national festival: who is the nation, then? A couple of thousand insomniacs?
It has been estimated that 7% of the French participated in the French Revolution, and 11% Iranians in the Iranian one.
Suppose even 1% of our people came out at midnight on 21st February: that would be an impressive army – no, a veritable horde – of 1,500,000 (the size of roughly China's army). But the Daily Star article clearly said "millions with flowers". How many make "millions"? 5 million? 10 million? That would mean an astounding 3 to 6% of the population! Half a French revolution 56 years after the event! Surely every satellite would have picked out such a migration? Surely every newspaper and TV channel would have broadcast the mass of humanity? Not to mention all those flowers.
So it seems even the middle classes didn't come out – they were snoring.
Not only that, I haven't heard of any other country or people who celebrated a so-called International Day – it seems that neither the national, nor the international, turned up for the International Mother Language Day.
The chap who penned that piece should take up fiction – clearly his forte. Not reportage.
In a novel perhaps he can answer the question: who is the nation (and in a sequel, he can delineate the 'International")?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
PLUTONIUM (four poems)
Sayeed
(click link above to read)
PLUTONIUM: Inspired by the obituary of Glenn Seaborg, this poem looks at the choices facing the Japanese before they entered the war, and the choices facing the Americans as they created the atomic bomb: Seaborg was among the scientists who wanted the Japanese to be given a demonstration of the destruction they could expect, but their demand was turned down.
UNTO OTHERS: we ask of the west, "What can it do for me", and do not realise what the west has done to collectives and may do to us in the future.
THE THIRD: What prevents us from getting at each other's throat? The state. And when that breaks down, the Third is some kind of Deity.
THE WISDOM OF CHILDREN: Wordsworth (and the Romantics) thought children were wiser than adults, and glorified the irrational, which culminated in the crazed nationalism of the French Revolution; these ideas came to us in 1952....
(click link above to read)
PLUTONIUM: Inspired by the obituary of Glenn Seaborg, this poem looks at the choices facing the Japanese before they entered the war, and the choices facing the Americans as they created the atomic bomb: Seaborg was among the scientists who wanted the Japanese to be given a demonstration of the destruction they could expect, but their demand was turned down.
UNTO OTHERS: we ask of the west, "What can it do for me", and do not realise what the west has done to collectives and may do to us in the future.
THE THIRD: What prevents us from getting at each other's throat? The state. And when that breaks down, the Third is some kind of Deity.
THE WISDOM OF CHILDREN: Wordsworth (and the Romantics) thought children were wiser than adults, and glorified the irrational, which culminated in the crazed nationalism of the French Revolution; these ideas came to us in 1952....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
