Tales From the Right-wing Press

Today's SoT follows an unusual theme as it follows the adventures of the right-wing press/blogosphere in religion, the economy, Nick Griffin, immigration, and what makes leftists tick. Why, this doesn't sound controversial at all...

Hitchens - The Maily Dail
Readers will no doubt remember my 6th March post concerning Hitchens' position regarding the film The King's Speech (link; Hitchens, right, Daily Mail pic). Here he returns with his 14th March article 'A Hunk of Red Meat':

"From time to time I like to hurl a chunk of bleeding meat into the cave where the Atheist readers of this site lurk, waiting longingly for a chance for a good superior snarl at those stupid, unteachable believers - just so that I can hear the snapping of their jaws."

With no concept of irony, he then goes on to discuss how atheists have no moral basis to their conception of the world, or (if they claim to) that they've stolen them from Christians. That is, ethical justifications of murder, stealing and so on are Christian values (instead of human ones inherent to most societies). Without such a well-founded moral compass, he further argues that atheism can only lead to Siberian work-camps, "Somewhere near Mogadishu...Or Babylon". So we're ignoring the fate of Arians and Pelagians at the hands of Catholics, are we? And the Reconquista and resulting Spanish inquisition? And the German Christians of WW2? Oh, we are.

Toby Young - The Telegraph
Unfunny columnist Toby Young (picture right, The Telegraph), author of How To Lose Friends and Alienate People, has warned against 'Banker bashing', claiming that doing so will cost Britain £20 billion in business tax; they will leave if we bully them too much.

"Far from shaming members of the financial services industry into paying more in taxes, the only result is likely to be more bankers electing to live abroad where their enormous contribution to tax revenues is better appreciated."

All indications are that bankers will be paid extortionate amounts of bonuses in 2011, like they were in 2010, so I can hardly feel sorry. But anyway, I don't see why we need to be so unspeakably servile to such people. If they leave, good riddance -why welcome parasites? The government isn't even cracking down on tax dodgers anyway, according to the Private Eye, so I find comments like this pointless. Lacking in perspective, offensive, and utterly pointless.

Norman Tebbit - The Telegraph
Tebbit (pic right, Telegraph) was a cabinet member in two of Thatcher's governments. Too right-wing for the Conservative Party, he has accused Michael Foot of fascism, accused the unemployed of not trying hard enough to get unemployed, and even campaigned against homosexuals being allowed to hold high office.

A few weeks ago he wrote a reasonably rational article about getting the pubic and private sectors to compete. However, in responding to online comments, I noticed the following:

"As for Andy Patten who said that I “did not squeak” at the treatment of [Nick] Griffin of the BNP by the BBC, he is quite right. I did not squeak. I do not squeak. I spoke and I criticised the BBC for so badly treating Griffin that he became an object of sympathy rather than being held to account as just another socialist holding strong views on immigration and community relations."

A...socialist? I could understand the word if it was prefixed by 'national', but socialist? Really? That isn't a synonym for 'extremist'. A socialist is almost diametrically opposed to fascist principles, as any idiot knows, but Tebbit just lumps these two things together, expecting them to get along just fine. I don't know what he might cite as examples of their cooperation. Nazism was only a facade of a marriage between nationalism and socialism (no anti-capitalist scheme was introduced, and humans were definitely not treated equally), and Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ended with a little something called the 'Eastern Front'. That's if you want to call the Soviet Union 'socialist', though. I don't.

Thomas Sowell - Capitalism Magazine
Thomas Sowell is a conservative economist (pic right, thecompetentconservative.com), and against Barack Obama. That's fair enough. I'm no supporter of Obama either, although I suspect for different reasons, and I don't see anything inherently wrong in opposing him -so long as it anti-Islamic, petty or racist (the PC Free Zone scores 2/3 on that test), and I don't even see what Islam has to do with it.

Although his article is hardly new, dating from September 2008, Sowell's The Vision of The Left article left me in stitches.

"It is hardly surprising that young people prefer the political left. The only reason for rejecting the left's vision is that the real world in which we live is very different from the world that the left perceives today or envisions for tomorrow. Most of us learn that from experience-- but experience is precisely what the young are lacking. "Experience" is often just a fancy word for the mistakes that we belatedly realized we were making, only after the realities of the world made us pay a painful price for being wrong."

I've encountered such ageism before, and it's a pathetic scapegoat. It's a way to circumvent an argument by simply dismissing the arguer. There have been plenty of old leftists -George Orwell, Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill immediately leap to mind- who have gotten more leftist as they've gotten older, for a start. And it opens Sowell to the alternative argument: as you get older, you're corrupted by bad experience or over time become a hypocrite. I don't advocate either argument, and further to that don't even think Sowell has put his own experience to good use. See how he over simplifies and misconstrues history:

"For those who bother to study history, it was precisely the opposite policies in the 1980s-- pouring tons of money into military equipment-- which brought the Cold War and its threat of nuclear annihilation to an end. The left fought bitterly against that "arms race" which in fact lifted the burden of the Soviet threat, instead of leading to war as the elites claimed."

If you say so.

It's Sunday!

I recently came upon this song when watching the film Carlos the Jackel. I've been listening to it ever since, but have no idea why it is so addictive. Musically it is very similar to Joy Division, especially very late songs like Ceremony, but Peter Hook poorly replicates Ian Curtis' vocals. Somehow there's a mood in the song that really grips me, particularly in the rhythm guitar's bridge part. Maybe someone out there understands?

And anyone following my Adrian Borland obsession will understand my plugging of several new videos on YouTube, namely: Second Layer - Courts or Wars, White Rose Transmission - Love Is A Foreign Land, and an extremely rare interview with Borland from 1987.

Politics & Archaeology

Archaeology is increasingly coming into the popular consciousness. Why exactly this is happening is a matter for debate, but most likely it is a combination of several things: increased archaeological work with the change in planning policy (PPG16), the slew of cash the private sector has put into it since then, better communication through the internet and TV, and several high-profile archaeologists who connect with the public. In short, the general public is growing more and more aware of the results of archaeological research.

Everyone has their own understanding of history, and an understanding of where they are right now in time. When any of us receives news of anything, whether it is political, social or (in this case) archaeological, we automatically sort that news out in our minds and make sense of it in our own way. Historiography, the history of history itself, has shown that archaeology has been manipulated every which way for political ends, from allusions to Rome during Napoleon's regime to reinterpretations of the Vikings in racist Nazi ideologies before the Second World War (see the German recruitment poster below).

Last night I watched a documentary that explored this very subject: Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou's Bible's Buried Secrets (promotional image below). Throughout she explored archaeological evidence that suggests the empire of King David never existed, despite it being a major source of legitimacy for the modern Israeli state, and concludes the following:

"My search has shown me that the events of David's life, as described in the bible, probably never took place. But in some ways that shouldn't matter. It's the meaning of the story of David that has proved so resilient. Even now it's a source of hope and solidarity for modern Israelis and the Jewish faith. It's incredible that a 3000 year old story should continue to play such a pivotal role in the identity politics of a modern state like Israel. But I sense dangers here, both to archaeology and to Israel's identity...this may still be a promised land for the Jewish people, but the use of science to try and prove ancient divine rights to this territory is a dangerous exercise"

In one sense she is right: research is manipulated for nationalistic ends. But she claims archaeology to be an objective endeavour that has been compromised, as well as a science. A science the excavation may be, but the dissemination of its findings is not scientific -as I mentioned, everyone sorts the archaeology out in their own heads first. Zionists will always use archaeological information for their own ends, and making archaeology so distant and objective will only make it voiceless.

Archaeology needs to challenge assumptions, not play into them. We should not advocate pro or anti Zionist stances, but seek to undermine both -how cultures co-existed in the past can become an inspiration for how they should live right now.

On the other hand, you might say that it's too dangerous for archaeologists to play politics. Ever since the crisis in Libya, with Gaddafi's anti-colonial diatribes on TV almost ever day, I've been thinking about the message DJ Mattingly's work in that region sends to people. In several articles, including one in his Dialogues in Roman Imperialism, he links Roman occupation with the later Italian colonisation, and frequently feels the need to defend the Libyan everyman from outside oppression. I just wonder how much things like that are used by people like Gaddafi as a historical basis to justify their own violent, nationalistic regimes. There is a balance, here, and we need to get it right.

Whatever we do, though, people are going to seize it for their own agendas. From what I can see, we can either join in, stay silent or challenge everyone. If we don't make archaeology relevant, soon enough someone else will.

The King's Speech

On Friday we went to see The King's Speech (2010), which (if you didn't know by now) is the Oscar-winning tale of King George VI's 1939 radio address to the nation -how he managed to overcome his speech impediment to do so, and his relationship with his speech therapist, Lionel Logue. Our reactions were generally positive -it was technically very good, very funny, and well acted all round.

In the back of my mind while watching it, however, was the scolding dismissal of the film offered by our other monarch, Peter Hitchens (image below, Guardian). In his January 10th blog post 'The Real King's Story, versus 'The King's Speech'' he attacked:

• the promotion around the film ('propagandist's art')
  
• the swearing in the film ('unnecessary and false')
• the woman to his left in the cinema ('who had a laugh like a wombat being electrocuted')
• the actors ('Colin Firth is badly miscast')
• the portrayal of the Archbishop of Canterbury ('childish and incredible')
• historical accuracy ('smiley and largely false')
• King George VI ('I regard this behaviour [this appearance with Chamberlain after Munich]...an unconstitutional and partisan action')
• ad infinitum

The fascinating thing about his article is his utter lack of humour, borne clearly out of a distrust over the 'hype' surrounding the film (which made me sceptical also). His ire falls first upon the 'left-wing and conservative' audience against which he feels superior -the laughter of the audience is either republican in nature or down to some kind of 'pack' mentality. He insinuates, amazingly, that it is 'nasty'.

His historical criticisms aside (I study the past and had no serious objection to anything in it), Hitchens loaths the treatment the oath suffers at the hands of Logue, objecting in particular to the character referring to it as 'rubbish', and the treatment of the archbishop and the CofE as fusty and cantankerous. Partly this is down to Hitchen's own traditionalist politics and religious views, but probably it is because he misses the point; the filmmakers wish to show the contrast between Logue's irreverent, egalitarian outlook and George VI's social position and privilege. Hitchens, a fusty and cantankerous institution himself, feels personally insulted where others just feel amused.

Last Thursday he summarised the plot thus:

'cheeky, hard-up, informal and classless Aussie jackaroo saves stuck-up repressed royal snob from stammer probably caused by snobbish repression, largely by making him swear and by mocking the grandeur of his position’

-which is a falsehood: even a glance at the title would indicate that Logue saves the King by teaching him how to deliver his speech -and thus preserve the 'grandeur of his position'.

But enough of fools, it's Sunday:

As a relative newcomer to The Beatles, I have so far stuck to the more accessible songs in their discography. The very first thing that stuck me about this particular song was the lyrics, which seem incredibly tame to modern ears, but which give it a sort of innocent charm. It's very catchy and uplifting, especially the Love album version, and used to make perfect listening on cold, slow, tiring workdays. I Want To Hold Your Hand pipped Drive My Car and Back In the USSR to the Sunday Song title this week.

Since Christmas...

...I have become a thesp. As promised late last year, I have included a snapshot of my Christmas card to some friends (right, top), although a picture of the card I created the Christmas before is strangely vacant from my hardrive. The wording around the edge reads: felix dies natalis christi, roughly translated as 'luck to you on the birth-date of Christ'. As the last one was Roman-themed I thought it best to skip ahead to the quasi-pagan post-Roman era, referencing the Wiccan Wheel-Year (right, below) along the way. Although it's a bit more minimalistic than 2009, the white space and heavy use of silver goes some way to giving the impression of cold, I think, making it a bit more suitable.

I've also been attempting for some time to get a decent picture of my dad's new paintings, although whether he wants them uploaded on here is really up to him. A recent attic clear-out has unleashed upon the household a backlog of his old illustrations and a couple of oil-paintings, one of which he has since touched up. I already have in a folder somewhere some scans of his old pencilwork, taken from a black notebook that I found discarded up there way back in 2007, and it'd be great for them to see the light of day again. Watch this space.

...I have been eyeing the competition. Most notably I have stumbled upon the blog of economic historian Daniel Little, Understanding Society, while feverishly trying to research Medieval economics. While at first it seems a bit heavy, the range and depth of the articles is staggering. It's definitely worth a read. Another -more archaeological- blog example Stanford University's Archaeolog, which hosts a range of theoretical opinion-pieces and revealing conference posts that make for interesting reading. I don't agree with quite a lot of it, but that's what makes it fun.

...I have published another article on archaeological theory. The 1100-word piece was intended both as a follow-up to last October's article about the darker side of postprocessualism (link), and in response to David Robert's reply in issue #14 (link). As a method of moving the debate on a bit, we decided this month to release point and counter-point together, his piece following mine. My article carried on in the same vein, taking his objections in hand, and then moving onto a discussion about the democratisation of the subject. He in turn defended his previous stance, taking the time to explain 'contextual holisticism' in more depth (you can read the details yourselves). What struck me most was how much more theorised and academic the journal has become in recent months, far more so than when I was an undergrad. While I'm not sure how much my articles have made people think, the postprocessualism debate has at least put theory out there -people can now read about this on coffee tables in King's Manor, or search for it on Google. Maybe in time the Post Hole could develop into a pan-student online journal similar to Sheffield University's graduate-controlled Assemblage?

That's all for now.
James

It Lives

After a prolonged absence, Strata of Thought returns!

There were a few reasons for down-time. Firstly, Christmas complicated the situation, as it will invariably do. Second, the blog felt like it needed a rest, and I felt like I needed to catch up with my ideas for once. The following posts, accordingly, are on subjects I have been considering for some time now, and hopefully that will result in some better articles. Lastly, Spring is upon us. What better an analogy for the rebirth of everything than the resurrection of a long-dormant blog?

One (superficial) change has been the posting time for SoT; the traditional Sunday slot has gone. Originally this day was ideal because of work on Saturdays (to which I am no longer bound) and university work during the week (which this complements anyway). The 'periodical' nature of posts, therefore, is intended to break the mechanistic Sunday-or-bust situation. Sunday songs will only feature on Sunday posts, however.

Thanks for reading!
James