Thursday, March 23, 2006

rent a minority

I recently found out about this initiative. It is now possible to go to a library and "borrow" a person to tell you about his or her experiences in life. The organizers have sought "typical" members of groups the ordinary citizen on this country would not interact with on a day to day basis.


So, you can borrow migrants of just about any nationality and flavor. Gays are so ordinary, I doubt there is much demand for them and the same holds for women (hey, half the people I know are women).

As with most things in life, I don't know what to think of it. Is this a Wonderful Initiative that will further mutual respect and understanding? Or is this an Insidious and Butt-Clenching Way in which the domination of a certain picture of "Dutch" culture is confirmed. (By presenting a minority as a minority, you tend to implicitly confirm his or her minor status -- or so I am told by some people.)

And the other thing I don't know is who I will borrow...

Monday, March 13, 2006

Religion in a secular world.

A couple of weeks ago, I went with my family to the Museon, a new-style "educational" museum in The Hague. It was fun. I recommend it if you are visiting with children. There are all kinds of exhibits which give information about the world in the new MTV style "interactive" fashion. And while I have reservations that this is indeed the way to present a museum collection to the public, it certainly seems to work for children from 6-15.

But that is not what I wanted to tell you about. On the second floor of the museum there are all kinds of historical and anthropological exhibits. One of these is about the religions of the world. There are "interactively" presented in a sort of tent. You enter it and on the inside the walls and the floor are made of little niches in which religious icons of the various world religions are displayed. You see fertility gods from the ancient Egyptians, ancestor statues from Papua people as well as the mandatory Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu and what have you icons. Also included in the exhibit is a family of Barbie dolls. Here is how the Museon describes the exhibit:

Religion At the Museon in The Hague
heated discussions are held between
representatives of various religions and Barbie, the disbeliever. In a huge Egg
they debate their convictions. The inside of the Egg is covered with religious
objects such as pictures of ancestors and gods. Each religious specialist taking
part in the discussion is present as an object and is spotlighted as he speaks.
Visitors see film fragments in which disbelievers show their rituals and either
illustrate or object to the master’s words. They are confronted with differences
and agreements between religions and can place their own culture in a worldwide
context, while they think about questions such as: what is the point of life,
who has invented all of this and what will happen after life on Earth?

While we were looking at the little niches together with a couple in their mid-thirties, all of a sudden the lights inside the tent switched off and a "multi-media" presentation started. We all sat on the ground and watched the presentation. It consisted of an introduction to each of the religions in the form of some kind of dialogue between the niches. For example, the Egyptian fertility gods were introduced as follows: "Each year the Nile river flooded, thus irrigating the fertile Nile valley. Because the arrival of the water also meant new food and new life to the Nile crocodiles, the ancient Egyptians believed that the fertility gods were crocodiles..." after which a different voice takes over telling the story from the point of view of the Egyptian god. In this fashion all the religions are introduced and they start discussing with each other. "In the Bible it says that there is only one God. Me. And I am everywhere." "How can there be but one God. No, we, the Papuans, believe that there are many Gods, most of them are our ancestors." "That is wrong!" etc., etc.

Towards the end of the exhibit, Barbie en Ken take the floor and in an amused voice they declare that all those Gods don't exist and that this whole discussion is nonsense. At that point in the presentation the couple start to laugh and in a loud voice declare that they are very surprised that Barbie tells the truth: "Imagine that we'd have to hear the truth from a Barbie doll...!"

This whole episode made me think about how we have come to view religion in my secular country (Netherlands). First, the exhibit, in spite of all its efforts, takes an external look to these religions. It is as if an anthropologist is talking about these faiths. Not talking as a believer. The quarrel between the various niches becomes very contrived and unconvincing as a result. The reason is that you never are given the sense of what it is like to believe in (a) God or to be committed to a set of very demanding rules that guide both private and public life. What is more, I suspect that, at least in Holland, Christians have come to see their own faith in this external fashion as well, as something that can be seen from the outside and selected from the outside. I once overheard a conversation in the train where an over-the-top baby-boomer explained that she had found such a good faith "it really suits me". In other words, the exhibit illustrates how we have lost the sense of what it is like to live your life inside a deep metaphysical commitment to a religion. This is not to say that we don't have any such commitments any more. It just means that the religious ones are now closed off to us.

The second thing, which more or less supports this observation has to do with the reaction of the couple to the atheist statements of Ken and Barbie. They were sure that the people around them would share their atheist views and if the people did not, they were sure that the religious ones among them would either not take offense of be so polite as not to express their concern. This already show just how secular Dutch culture has become. It also explains the emerging view of religion as an irrational force that is intrinsically evil and stands in the way of progress and happiness.

Only in such a culture, could such an exhibit be made. And only in such a culture could such a remark be made.

For the record: I am not religious in ANY way myself, but apparently I have seen enough of it to see what the exhibit was missing and what was peculiar about the apparent world views of that couple.

And while I would not be sad to see religion disappear from the collective consciousness of mankind, I do see what we would be missing if it did. Perhaps for that reason alone, we should hope that some (not too many) religious people will hang around to remind us every now and then that there are fundamentally different way of living your life.

Friday, March 10, 2006

A ridiculous but dangerous woman...

She managed to get into the news again. The completely-over-the-top widow of the late Ferdinand Marcos, Immelda.

It is easy to forget when seeing this ridiculous person that she commands a huge power base and has it in her power to have you assassinated wherever you are in the Philippines and many places outside of there. What is more, she has done so in the past -- alledgedly. Starting out in life as an ambitious second-tier actress, she has used her opportunities to amass a vast fortune and a loyal following, including some militias. And while she is not as powerful as she used to be, I am really appalled that she was allowed to return to the Philippines and that she manages to stay out of jail where she belongs.

She is an evil woman indeed.

You made your bed...

Rumsfeld testified before the US Congress today and said that if Iraq were to descend into an all-out civil war, it would be up to the Iraqis to get out of it -- at least initially.

I find that incredibly callous and bordering on the criminal. First of all, the USA is the occupying force in Iraq, both de facto and in some areas of policy de jure. That means that they cannot just take off their hands and look the other way when their control of the situation slips as radically as that.

Secondly, and this really is the thing that gets me, the threat of civil war (if we are not already there) has a lot, if not everything to do with the US presence in Iraq. By removing Saddam's regime, they, as it were, armed the bomb of the ethnic factions in Iraq. If it goes of and Iraq does descend into a civil war, the USA cannot pretend it is not also their fault. It is like saying that since you did not make the bomb, nor placed it where it is, you are completely excempted from all responsibility for the damages an explosion will cause, even though you did remove the safety and armed the detonator.

Perhaps Rumsfeld realizes that the US forces no longer have things under control in Iraq and as a result thinks that they cannot do anything there. But that belies just about every rationalization of the continued presence of US forces in Iraq! It turned out there were not weapons of mass destruction; it turns out that the Iraqi people were not over-joyed to see the US forces arrive; it turns out, in short, that the intelligence leading up to the invasion as well as the contingency planning for what happened afterwards, failed miserably. Since that is the case, the only thing you can do is either (1) stay, make the best of it and try to establish a stable democratic regime. In short, make Iraq a better place than it was before. Or (2) acknowledge you ****ed up, pay damages, and get the hell out of there.

Mr. Rumsfeld should realize that he has made his own bed... whether he like it or not, he should continue to sleep in it.