Sunday, January 23, 2011

An Excercise in Fiction? We are at war.

"To be a mother, to be a wife can only be understood by those of us blessed enough to have lived as both. As you hold your child to your chest for the first time, the fickle heart sets as sure as concrete, and beats with a rhythm as steadfast as the knowledge that now, you will always love, and be loved.

I guess I must sound poetic. But show me a mother that doesn't love her child and I will show you a woman who has lost her soul. Poetry my words may be, but they cannot illustrate the depth of my feeling. There is no literal translation, this is the only truth.

But as poetry so often relishes, the strongest heart can break. Concrete can crumble.

My story. You all know this story by now. If you're reading this, you've lived through it. My words are nothing unusual, nor any more profound than your own. But I write them in the desire that you take solace in the knowledge that I too have seen what you have seen, have cried as you have cried. Have lived in hope as you too live in hope.

My name? Aisha.
Common in modern times I know. But as is always the case, my parents named me with the express intent that it shall remain unusual and original. It seems that even originality is no longer original. In my particular case, I have discovered that my name has crossed cultural lines to become quite common the world over. In a small way, I am connected to hundreds of thousands of people I will never meet. I like to think that my name is an example of the similarities between us all; that at the core, humanity is humanity no matter what cultural divisions are placed upon us. I'd really like to think so, even though at times like these, division is never more obvious. Maybe another Aisha is thinking the same thing thousands of miles away in another country that has different values to ours. Maybe she will one day become a politician and carry this thought with her. Maybe. Hope is a thin thread, but it is a thread stronger than steel when you are left holding little else.

I remember the arrogance of our government before the troubles started. The reports on TV about how we would defend ourselves to the last man. The regurgitation of our powerful history, the same history taught in school by proud teachers to astonished children, mouths agog as we delighted in tales of conquest, empires, kings & queens - the boys dominating the playground with games of war. A fiction of swords, guns and tanks proudly wielded as they fought an enemy that even at this young age took root in their minds. Do you remember those days? The days when we all felt invincible and war was simply a game played by boys with sticks and the wonderful imagination of youth?

And as the televisions blared with the words of yet another government official pompously orating of defence and victory, the boys of our childhood now stood as men. As husbands. As fathers. As an army ready to protect that which they had worked for and loved. It’s hard to call a man foolish when his honour is worn on his sleeve. But foolish is what men are. Boys trapped in a body that belies the true mind. But it is in their nature to defend what is theirs. To stand with other men and protect the freedoms of family, their progeny, their lifelong investments. It’s a trait of men that I can understand, but cannot abide. To fight for peace.

We are a small country aren’t we? And not the economic ‘tour-de-force’ we could have been. Our questionable politics and choice of allies – when I think about it now – made us the choice example for invasion. Our government bullied for too long, and finally, we gave someone the excuse they needed. Nobody will miss this country when it’s finally over, we’ll be an example of history and little more. A warning story for the new world.

The first explosion came at night. A dull boom that shook the house and lit the night sky in a glowing arc. The fires lit the way to my son’s room and I held him, my husband holding me, as we waited for the sirens. I remember reading the childish posters in my son’s wall, reading from the glimmer of burning buildings as we sat clutching each other in silence. Have you noticed that when fear takes hold, you turn to the simplest thing for comfort? A ballistic-lit alphabet was our strength that night.

And so it continued. The world around us slowly turning to ash as the city burned. This new, alien world burned inside me too; scorched a mark as I thought of the days when normality was a pathetic burden. The days when I complained of having to do the washing or pay bills. And it burned brightest when I thought of the days I would take my son to the park and talk with other mothers about the failures of our men as the children played.

Our Men. My man. My husband. A hole that bores through me so deeply that the flames can be seen. It was inevitable really. I knew I would lose him the moment the war started. Not because he was a violent, angry man with war on the tip of his tongue – quite the opposite in fact. His gentle, strong and protective nature defined him. It gave him an integrity that meant he could never surrender, not whilst his family still lived and breathed. He would fight for us, fight for his community; fight with every last thread of his being. And this he did.

As the invasion continued, we became more and more desperate. Food and water became a rich commodity as the occupying forces dug deeper. It didn’t take long until our military fell apart, and surrender came and went without much drama. Nothing changed. We still starved; we still slept in clutched huddles as the shelling continued. But a new resolve had grown in our men. Men who only months before were grocers, bankers, taxi drivers... these men were now fighters. Killers. Forced far from their natural habitat to become the violent defenders of what remained of our country. We are seen as collateral to the occupying armies; as superficial parasites inconveniently buried in their agenda of acquisition. Superficiality illustrated with the stories rape, torture and execution that filtered through during conversations over huddled fires at night, in buildings pock-marked with bullet holes and filled with the stench of smoke.

My husband was lost defending a hospital at the edge of the city with a group of about twenty men armed with weapons collected quietly over many months. A hospital filled with human collateral; filled with mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters who had no true part in this war. The missile hit, nobody survived.

‘These things happen’. Then a school is hit. A housing complex is obliterated. ‘These things happen’.

But I have No time to mourn. I have my son. My child. And with this mercy, I am blessed. The changing face of our country plays no part in my undying love for him.

So, I no longer live in a society that I understand, the foreign politics of this new system has torn from me my place within it. But there is no war within my mind. My losses can only be weighed against the loss of others; the mass graves; the bodies of men, women and children on the street. There is no war in my mind because there is no fight. This war is evil. There is no doubt about that.

And as I close this brief note, I shall avoid such clichés as ‘we are one voice’. We are not. We are a discordant song of clashing harmonies, each fighting to be heard above the white noise; each believing that our voice is the sweetest. But until that day when our song will come together to create the most beautiful sound this world has ever heard; take time to think of those in silence.

Aisha."

Note found by Allied Forces next to the bodies of a woman and child in Baghdad, Iraq. 2011.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Your Linguistic Misinterpretation, Arguing About Poorly Pigs. My Fist.

I'm going to start this one off with a conversational illustration. This conversation has been chewed - with slight variations - many, many times throughout my life. Talk to me and you’ll notice the scars.

Me: The sky is blue.
Clever, Overqualified and Clearly Knowledgeable (COCK): Well... that depends.
Me: Its blue. Look at it. Blue.
COCK: It depends entirely on many different variables. For example...
Me: *sigh*
COCK: No, really, it depends on many different variables. For example, what do you define as 'sky'? If you look up and it's cloudy, you see white or grey. But you are still looking into the sky, right? So the sky is sometimes white or grey. And if you think about night-time...
Me: I wasn't thinking about night-time.
COCK: But if you WERE thinking about night-time, the sky is black. With white dots. Unless you're looking through a telescope at a nebula.
Me: I wasn't thinking about night-time. Nor am I looking through a telescope. At a nebula or otherwise. Can I just get back to my point...?
COCK: And what about sunsets? Or sunrises for that matter? You have a whole range of hues at these times, if the sky is clear of course. Otherwise we go back to the white / grey scenario. And if you were in a sandstorm...
Me: Look, I was making a simple statement. No need to...
COCK: Of course there is a need! Knowledge is freedom! To make a statement like 'the sky is blue' so flippantly is to deny the truth.
Me: You're starting to give me a headache.
COCK: You've given YOURSELF a headache. Why are you fighting these poignant facts?
Me: Okay. You win. Firstly, I am not denying the points you've made are 'factual'. I would even agree. But, I was making a basic observation that was far more relevant to us sitting here, drinking tea in the garden...
COCK: All knowledge is relevant...
Me: ...please shut up. Look, any intelligent thesis you put forward is completely out of context and therefore arbitrary. Shall I carry on your spiel and point out that light is simply a neurological interpretation of 'packets' of light energy, meaning colour doesn't actually exist without our subjective interpretation? And for that matter, the 'sky' is another subjective concept that doesn't exist in a completely literal sense. So where do we draw the line, numb-nut? Where does the 'education' stop? Shall we keep reducing basic concepts to the point where we both come to the conclusion that we don't exist in any other plain than the 'conscious' and therefore philosophical one? If this is the case, then ANY question asked or statement made should come with a universal reply of "nothing exists". Ad Mortem. So, let’s not bathe in the futility of this exercise. Let’s start again. The sky is blue.
COCK: That depends on many different variables...
Me: I want to punch you in the face.

Welcome to my pain. The above illustration provides a glimpse into why I am a migraine sufferer. Unfortunately, the same conversation has been had on dozens of occasions spanning dozens of subjects, from gender through to clothing. I believe I've even had to sit through a complex diatribe after I exclaimed that my 'yoghurt tasted off', provided by someone who thought it important to educate me in the microbiological cultures in milkstuffs. And most of my long-term relationships have been party to these sorts of conversations too, which quickly turn into arguments after my patience is worn thin following a smart-assed rebuke to a question I've asked such as 'we haven't been out in a while... want to do something?'. I clearly know the difference between ‘going out’ and leaving the house.

The loss of context in conversation is the single most frustrating thing I encounter on a regular basis - mainly because it seems to be educated folk who partake in context-avoidance to simply score points. And matters are made worse because I tend to have a default-setting that makes me talk straight and true. And I expect the same in return. If I haven't asked you about apartheid, don't go off on one and suggest that I'm racist when I ask if you've been watching the snooker.

It gets worse when the loss of context is taken as a personal affront. It’s hard to field a curve-ball of abuse when I've let someone know that today, they seem a bit tired. If you decide to converse with me about this, I'm expecting to hear about X number of hours sleep, or your morning jog. At no point have I made any sort of statement about your being unable to cope, your family life, the state of your hair or the fact that your partner demands too much sex and shies away from housework. Whilst these things may be true, on a conversational spider-graph, the points you are making are only connected to my comment via a sheet of A4 paper at the other side of the room and the ink from several pens.

Sorry about the rant, but I believe I have a valid point. You see, these 'misunderstandings' are entirely understandable in our current climate, because manipulation of context and language has become a cultural norm. We are bombarded constantly with propaganda, marketing bumph and the rhetoric of politicians, all of which manipulate language and context to purposefully evoke confusion. How can we keep tabs on context when its being used like the ball hidden under the plastic cup of a magician?

As an example, for several years now, we’ve been bombarded with news headlines relating to the scary-arsed ‘possible pandemic’ of Swine-Flu. The following comes directly from the BBC News website dated June 2009:

The government has warned that deaths from swine flu this winter could be between 19,000 and 65,000 in the UK. Experts said it was impossible to predict exactly, but with a third of the population perhaps becoming infected in the coming months the death toll could rise to such numbers.”

Anybody who reads the above will – chances are - believe that the minimum number of piggy-plague deaths will be 19,000. In fact, that’s exactly what is carefully implied, without actually being implied as a ‘fact’ at all. Hence the use of the words ‘could be’, and the inclusion of the final sentence which again retracts the numbers as fact, but then reinforces the fear in-case you’re getting wise to this wholly stupid statement. Also notice the ‘perhaps’ lobbed in for lawyer-pleasing good measure.

So, the general populace lives in fear of this ‘deadly’ H1N1 virus, believes the news reports (after all, it came from the BBC via Westminster) and the pharmaceutical companies get a wedge-load of public money by churning out millions of vaccinations.

But here’s the rub. Firstly, H1N1 has another name. It’s commonly known as ‘flu’. Yes, believe it or not, swine-flu is simply flu. You know, the flu that you get when your other-half buys you Lemsip and you sweat on the sofa with a stack of DVDs you’d otherwise never manage to watch. One and the same squire. But apparently a pig had it, so the language used is valid. And swine flu is much more saleable, coming off the back of chicken-flu or whatever it was called that gave everyone the willies a little while ago. And you know that 65,000 soon-to-be-knackered estimate? Red-faces all around methinks, as the actual death-toll (according to a recent article in the Guardian) is more like 350. To give some sort of comparison, the average yearly death toll from ‘normal flu’ averages around 3,500. But hey, at least the CEOs of the pharmaceutical companies have made enough dough to build an extension on their yachts.

In much the same way that we pick-up accents when in an environment for any length of time, we learn these linguistic traits and lose the ability to converse or even listen in a straightforward, honest manner. When we learn how to converse via news headlines and Eastenders scripts, we all become dramatists and truth-benders or simply lose the ability to talk in a simple and concise manner. We take context into the shed, cover it with an old towel and give it a kicking. How many of you have partaken in a round of Chinese-whispers or are partial to modifying the truth for the sakes of drama? By the end of the conversation, it wasn’t the simple fact that your lack of attention caused the cake to burn. It was because you had an important phone-call / fell asleep due to being awake all night with your bad knee / discovered that your grandmother had caught a rare disease from an imported fishcake and had to look it up on Wikipedia etc etc.

BUT... there is one thing even more frustrating than modifying the truth, or expanding truth for the sakes of context-manipulation. And it’s this: Ignoring pertinent information so as to avoid dealing with uncomfortable truth. Loss of context through self-imposed ignorance.

Me: Here we go again, another round of Swine Flu headlines. Pharmaceutical company share-prices will go up and the politicians will be happy.
Basic Evader of Relevant Knowledge (BERK): What?
Me: There. Look. Another Swine-Flu headline. Obviously meant to scare us enough to go and get vaccinated. Or to buy vast amounts of vapo-rub and vitamin-C in preparation.
BERK: What are you on about?
Me: The politicians are trying to scare us so that their buddies at the Pharm-Companies get a shitload of free money from the bank-of-tax, or from things we can buy from the supermarket to ‘manage symptoms’. We don’t have a private healthcare system, so the government has to think of creative ways to dip their hands into the public purse and throw money at the pharmaceuticals. It’s also interesting to know that many of the more powerful MPs have links directly to these companies.
BERK: What?
Me: Are you listening to me? This is a very silly scam. More people are dying every year from rough sex than swine-flu. This is a marketing campaign!
BERK: I don’t care what you’re on about. Nothing I can do about it.
Me: Are you kidding? Don’t you find this both offensive and degrading?
BERK: You think too much...
Me: I want to punch you in the face.

So, to conclude this erratic swathe of syntax: Stop talking nonsense. Or I will punch you in the face.

Dee.