Effective passive resistance to dictatorship: Spain and Iran

In Spain, after 1939, when their Basque ethnic identity was viciously repressed by dictator Francisco Franco, following the disastrous Spanish Civil War, Basque patriots had the presence of mind to offer passive resistance by cultivating geraniums on the balconies of their houses and flats. The red and green of the plants (plus an imaginary white) were an easily identifiable silent symbol of the Basque ‘national’ colours. Decades later, after the death of the dictator in 1975, their ethnic ambitions were rewarded with a comforting semi-autonomy. (The lengthy and murderous rebellion of the ETA terrorist organisation was the result of activism by a tiny unsupported minority.) Spanish Catalans (in the broad Barcelona region) were similarly rewarded for their passive resistance to similar ethnic humiliations and repression – by keeping their proscribed Catalan language alive in the home. For more than three decades, Catalans have thrived in a semi-autonomous and very productive region of Spain.

Many decades later, the free world now welcomes an equivalent, though more risky, expression of defiance to dictatorship and tyranny: the spontaneous response of the people of Iran to the recent disputed elections. The following report from TheTimes of London describes the current precarious – and volatile – situation: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6572101.ece

June 25, 2009
‘Wailing of wolves’ in Iran as cries of Allahu akbar ring from roofs
Martin Fletcher
At about 9pm each day Nushin, a young housewife, performs the same curious ritual. She climbs up the stairs to the roof of her Tehran home and begins shouting into the night. Allahu akbar,” she cries, and sometimes “Death to the dictator”.
She is not alone. Across the darkened city, from rooftops and through open windows, thousands of others do the same to form one great chorus of protest — a collective wail of anger against a reviled regime that no amount of riot police and Basiji militia can stop. “It sounds like the wailing of wolves,” said one Tehrani.
And each night, as the street demonstrations are crushed with overwhelming force and the regime cracks down on all other forms of dissent, it grows steadily louder and more insistent, not just in Tehran but in other densely populated cities of the Islamic Republic.
“It’s the way we reassure ourselves that we are still here and we are still together,” says Nushin, a woman who has never dared to rebel before.
“This is what people did before the revolution and I hope it warns the regime about what could happen if it doesn’t change its way.
“And because I’m a religious person the sound resonating in the neighbourhood makes me feel better. Even my little daughter joins me, and I can see how she feels that she is part of something bigger. It is our unique way of civil disobedience and what’s interesting is that it increases every time they do something that makes people angrier.”
Ever resourceful, the opposition has developed other ways of showing dissent short of wearing green or taking to the streets. They honk their horns, and they drive their cars and motorbikes with their headlights on. But the hour of chanting is anonymous, safe and almost impossible for the security forces to stop. Who could arrest someone for shouting their praise of God? Hossein, a young engineer, is another nightly participant. “The first time I did it, it was in protest to the theft of my vote, the insult that the President had made towards us,” he told The Times. But after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, ruled out any compromise in his sermon last Friday, “it has become much more than that. It is the people’s way of saying that they are still together and will stay that way until they reach their goal. It has become a way of getting out our anger when we can’t protest and to keep it going . . . It makes me happy to hear others, it reminds me that I’m not alone.”
In many ways this has been a high-tech rebellion, with the opposition using video clips shot with mobile phones, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and the internet to generate outrage around the world. But the rooftop protests are the precise opposite and a deliberate and resonant throwback to an earlier age.
It is what Iranians did before the revolution of 1979. From their roofs, they would shout Allahu akbar” to support Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei in his battle against the tyranny of the former Shah. That a later generation should now be using the very same weapon against the regime that Khomeini helped to establish is an irony lost on no one.

Parochial Health Alert for Your Consideration: Leopard Geckos from Overseas

A small but significant number of my potential 6 billion readers should be grateful to The Mornington and Southern Peninsula Mail (Victoria, Australia) for alerting its few thousand readers to the possible dangers (to a small minority of human beings, and to other reptiles) of keeping as pets imported leopard geckos from India, Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Here is their sombre news of 3 June 2009, available on http://www.morningtonpeninsulamail.com.au

Gecko Raid Nets Collector

“A Bittern woman is likely to be charged with keeping adult leopard geckos following a raid by wildlife officers.

Department of Sustainability and Environment investigator Keith Larner said the woman, 41, faced penalties of up to A$110,000 in fines and/or two years in jail for keeping the banned lizards.

DSE and Victoria Police officers obtained a search warrant and raided her home after DSE received an anonymous call to its customer service centre.

Officers found three leopard geckos, which are native to India, Afghanistan and Pakistan and can carry parasitic diseases including cryptosporidium and coccidiosis, which are highly contagious to humans and reptiles.

“We don’t know who called, but we greatly appreciate the information,” Mr Larner said.

He said it was illegal under state and federal legislation to possess, breed, or trade exotic reptiles such as leopard geckos.

“Keeping exotic reptiles is selfish and highly irresponsible,” Mr Larner said. “It’s alarming to see the lengths people will go to just so they can have an exotic pet.”

Consistent with most exotic reptiles seized in Vitoria , the geckos will be euthanised due to the risk of disease.

The leopard gecko has been captive-bred in the United States for more than 30 years and is one of the most comonly kept lizards, with some living to 25 years old.

It comes in a variety of colours, patterns and sizes, and grows up to 28 centimetres long.

Rare coloured geckos can cost $4,000. Collectors are intrigued by its eyelids, ability to wash its eyes with its tongue and a tail that drops off when it is threatened.

Unlike other species of gecko, leopard geckos have small claws instead of adhesive toe pads and cannot climb walls.

(Anyone with information on exotic reptiles held in the community can call the DSE on 136 186. Information will be treated in confidence.)”

*

Interestingly, Wikipedia, less alarmist but more ubiquitous than The Mornington and Southern Peninsula Mail (Victoria, Australia), gives the following information under ‘Cryptosporidiosis’ as an acute short-term infection – except for those with immune system problems. Wikipedia does not, however, duplicate this information in its article on ‘Leopard Gecko’. But any observant Wiki-serf can rectify that in a couple of minutes.

“Cryptosporidiosis, also known as crypto,[1] is a parasitic disease caused by Cryptosporidium, a protozoan parasite in the phylum Apicomplexa. It affects the intestines of mammals and is typically an acute short-term infection. It is spread through the fecal-oral route, often through contaminated water;[1] the main symptom is self-limiting diarrhea in people with intact immune systems. In immunocompromised individuals, such as AIDS patients, the symptoms are particularly severe and often fatal. Cryptosporidium is the organism most commonly isolated in HIV positive patients presenting with diarrhea.”

Wikipedia also classifies ‘Coccidia’ as a human parasite.

Keeping a watchful eye on media forecasts about the Economic Crisis

Amid the welter of conflicting media opinions on how well or badly the world, and in particular the ‘Western’ world, is faring and whether we are close to bottoming out yet, with the requisite appearance of promising “green shoots”, concerned readers might benefit from a perusal of the recent plausible warning by Matthew Lynn that the UK is just as worthy as Ireland to be downgraded from a triple ‘A” rating by the international ratings agencies (Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch). As Lynn – whose financial advice is more often accessible on a subscriber basis – elaborates, the consequences of such a decision for the British economy would be very serious. He also comments that the powerful agencies find themselves on the horns of a dilemma because their income is dependent on the City of London. Lynn’s conclusion, nevertheless, is: “People in the bond markets reckon Fitch will break ranks first, as it did with Japan.” [in September 1998]

For the full article, go to the Spectator website (www.spectator.co.uk) for ‘Brown’s Nemesis awaits – and his Name is Brian’.

This same Spectator issue (for 20 May 2009) offers an equally sobering editorial on the current U.S. position, ‘It’s Groundhog Day for Obama’s economic team’ and a cautiously optimistic article by the veteran finance expert and delightful stylist, Martin Vander Weyer: ‘Green Shoots with shallow roots’.

Bon appétit!

The Mixed Blessings of Spiritual Tourism. Rishikesh, 1999

The distance from Delhi to Rishikesh is about 200 kilometres.

One of the disadvantages of unplanned travel in India is that, although there is probably a train service to the place you wish to visit, an advance booking is essential. So my hard-earned advice is that if you propose to make this particular trip, book a first class ticket on an air-conditioned train rather than travelling by popular bus services, unless you are lucky enough to find a first class air-conditioned vehicle. A hired taxi would also be a very worthwhile investment.

The character-building experience was preceded by a purgatorial one-hour auto-rickshaw ride through the least attractive suburbs of Delhi in morning rush hour traffic because my Indian friend and guide (S) was too parsimonious by nature and necessity to allow me to ‘waste’ money on a decent taxi. Ironically or karmically – more probably bureaucratically – half of the 20 kilometre rickshaw trip turned out to be quite unnecessary because the bus service did not actually depart from the advertised station but from another one 10 km away.

The tediously slow five hour ordeal on wooden slatted seats was bone-jarring and, given the conditions and driving habits prevailing on India’s overcrowded and lethal roads, hair-raising as well. Nevertheless, we eventually reached the extremely venerable city of Hardwar, situated on the Ganges. Here my companion of meagre means and needs insisted that we stay in his favourite cheap hotel despite my readiness to ‘splurge’ a few Rupees more, a gesture which was rejected as an inappropriate and self-indulgent luxury, especially in this hallowed place of pilgrimage. My small room was spartan, with a bloody mattress (literally), a battalion of mosquitoes and a squat toilet which induced instant constipation. But at least the night’s rest was more or less recuperative. Up at 6 a.m. to explore the sacred bathing ghats.

14 February – not only the festival of Mahasivaratri in 1999 but also St Valentine’s for cross-cultural adepts. What a nice ecumenical occasion. Down to the ghats beside the sacred river. Still dark and cold, but crowded. S. dutifully bathed while I declined the purgative experience but gingerly christened myself with a small handful of Ganga water. Then, for a tiny fee, a priest gave us a blessing with marigolds and a two-tone mark over the Third Eye. Actually, S. paid Rs10 and magnanimously suggested 500 rupees would be appropriate for me to offer; fortunately, 50 turned out to be all the priest required. A very quick breakfast in an unsavoury ghat-side café before two more street blessings from venerable itinerant saffron-robed Danda-Swamis toting their characteristic long Staffs. Where else can you get three blessings plus an updated christening in one hour! Things looked promising. Was I now a Hindu? Would the Pope, or the Dalai Lama, be upset about this? Would I be a better person?

Another bone-rearranging rickshaw ride for 30 km from Haridwar to the city of Rishikesh via the little hamlet where S’s – and now temporarily my – Swami protégé lodges (free of charge) with a family of Dalits in a tiny thatched hut. These dirt poor people are Swami R’s converts to Sathya Sai Baba, so it is their duty to feed and shelter him. Drawing aside a thin curtain, they wake the Swami him up to greet us and we sit under the pale early sunlight in the handkerchief-sized backyard, enjoying their very generous bananas and biscuits as prasad (blessed food). In a tree towering over the hovel stands a large sign announcing the Swami’s Mission:
Kali Age Incarnation, Hardwar Rd, opp. J.G.Glass Factory
Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba Learning Centre.

We exchange greetings and Swami R proudly informs us that he has been befriended by Baba Ram, who is the president of the local village’s Bharatiya Grib Chesna Parishad (Organisation for the Awakening of Poor [Grib] Indians). So he has a sound base for his Mission.

The self-appointed Swami’s self-appointed task is to go from village to village giving out thin proselytising leaflets about Sathya Sai Baba’s teachings, and to sing bhajans, etc. But in our conversation that morning he constantly harped on the lack of cooperation and, as he implied darkly, worse obstacles, from the local Sathya Sai Baba Centre in Rishikesh. In spite of all the alleged obstacles to his success, Swami R maintains (quite unrealistically to the independent observer) that this area will soon be the biggest Sathya Sai Baba Centre outside the Organisation’s HQ, the thriving township of Prasanthi Nilayam in far distant southern Andhra Pradesh. And, he confides, he needs Rs 5,000 to buy a neighbouring plot as a proper Centre. (Oh dear! What are his expectations from today’s visit? A quick calculation reveals that this is not an unattainable sum, since it is the equivalent of $US100, so I can give a modest but useful donation.)

Swami’s story: originally a teacher of economics and a lawyer, he lived in the main Sathya Sai Baba ashram in distant South India for several years. He has also lived for short periods in several Rishikesh ashrams since 1991. He says he is very dedicated to his important spiritual task but his constant carping and whining seem so, well, Unspiritual. He has nothing good to say of the officials at Sathya Sai Baba’s Centre in Rishikesh – but he may just be echoing his benefactor, my friend S (also a Sathya Sai Baba devotee), who has confided several reasons for complaint about his treatment by the Sathya Sai Organisation down south.

Swami R also appears overly fond of Sathya Sai Baba’s widely propagated disaster predictions to students during the mid-1980s. Although admitting they are only rumours, he is convinced that many people will be consumed by fire this year and that 8 May and 24 October are dates not to leave one’s home; certainly not to travel. (Later, I forgot to notice if anything happened on those specific days, so I imagine it didn’t, as usual with Doomsday predictions – so far, touch wood.)

What am I to make of all this negative stuff in the positive world of spirituality? Is its purpose to show me that the real India is not my cuppa chai? But is this the real India? Maybe it was, once.

Swami R takes us on a spiritual tour of the centre of Rishikesh and across the famously flimsy-looking Lakshmana Bridge. I treat my companions to a frugal vegetarian lunch in the Chotiwala Restaurant and finally hand over to Swami R my rather paltry donation of Rs 500, as previously commanded by S, who has also given him some money from time to time, like many other Indians, mainly elderly Hindus, who are merely doing their time-honoured spiritual duty (dharma).

The morning has heated up, so the river and mountain breezes are welcome. There is much activity and many western spiritual tourists are visible in the town and in the ashrams. The river and Himalayan foothills panorama is inspiring and distractingly photogenic. I can appreciate the strong attraction this setting has for Germans and other Europeans but what central Rishikesh really seems to offer is basic consumer spirituality on the cheap – except in the one or two expensive ashrams with their comfortable consumer flatlets. Up in the wilds of those overhanging Himalayan foothills, perhaps the smaller ashrams are different, more authentic.

The bookstalls in Rishikesh are full of books on the main Hindu saints and especially on tantric topics, which (like a number of Indian gurus since 1960) seem to exert a strong appeal for many foreign seekers. The gamut of literature on offer in the streets ranges from ‘Sex to Superconsciousness’, etc., plus books on Shirdi and Sathya (both of them are Sai Babas), and, for a few homesick British travellers, ‘The Day that Diana Died’.

We try to enter the old ashram where the famed Maharishi Mahesh Yogi taught the Beatles for a while in the 1960s, but we find entry is not allowed and an attendant at the main gate mutters something about the Maharishi being forced to flee after murders in the ashram committed by westerners – surely not a good career move, karmically. (In Sonepat, Haryana, much closer to Delhi, but still distant from Andhra Pradesh, another self-appointed guru, Siddheshwar Baba (aka Professor Bhim Sen Goel, a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba) set up his own ashram specialising in Kundalini Yoga, which for many years until his death in 1998 was much frequented by those ubiquitous and indefatigable ‘one-pointed’ German seekers of exotic spirituality, and other westerners.)

The return journey to Delhi by bus was equally horrendous but more bearable because, when I confided in S that I had stupidly left my pyjamas behind in the Hardwar hotel, he had informed me that that is in fact a blessing – because someone else will benefit from finding them, and even a double blessing because the loss and the find take place in such a holy site. Apparently you can leave behind a problem or an ailment here, paid for with such a ‘blessing’ for someone else to discover. What a lovely religion! In fact, my pyjama deficit was to bring a third blessing, thanks to S’s solicitous local inquiries: in spite of a couple of missed opportunities on my visit to India the following year, I was finally reunited with my pyjamas two years later (probably washed in Ganges water), by airmail post.

The European Union’s verdict on the Franco Régime in Spain (1939-1975)

An enlightening insight into the workings of the complex European Union government is on display in the following record of recent debates stemming from simmering European controversies over the distant but not forgotten Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and the ensuing Franco Dictatorship (1939-1975).

1. On 11 February 2004, in the Parliamentary Assembly of the EU, a Motion for a Resolution on the Need for International Condemnation of the Franco Regime was signed by 39 (mainly Socialist) Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). As a result, a European Union Political Affairs Committee was set up, with the prominent Maltese Socialist politician Leo Brincat as Rapporteur, to consider this question.

2. Of the 83 EU members appointed to the Committee, 36 were present at the final meeting on 4 October 2005 to adopt (unanimously) the Draft Recommendations (in English and French, but not Spanish) to the Parliamentary Assembly. (http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc05/EDOC10737.htm)

The Brincat Report consists of eight strongly worded recommendations and 100 paragraphs of background information.

3. In its turn, on 17 March 2006, the Standing Committee of the EU Parliamentary Assembly / Assemblée Parlementaire approved the Draft Recommendations for submission to the Council of Ministers. (http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/ta06/EREC1736.htm)

Recommendation 1736 (2006)
Need for international condemnation of the Franco regime

1. The Parliamentary Assembly strongly condemns the extensive and wide-ranging human rights abuses committed by the Franco regime in Spain from 1939 to 1975.

2. Public debate in Spain on the question of drawing up a full account of the Franco dictatorship’s crimes was launched in the 1980s and continues to this very day. The debate has further intensified under the present administration.

3. Initiatives started in the early 1980s, aimed at removing symbols of the dictatorship, such as statues, from public places and at renaming streets and schools named after Franco and his generals, have been quite successful.

4. The Assembly hopes that the present debate in Spain will result in a thorough and in-depth examination and assessment of the Franco regime’s actions and crimes. In particular, the Assembly looks forward to the results of the work of the Interministerial Commission for the Examination of the Situation of Victims of Civil War and the Franco Regime, established in October 2004.

5. At the same time, the Assembly underlines that the violation of human rights is not an internal matter of a single country and therefore the international community is as much concerned as the Spaniards themselves.

6. The awareness of history is one of the preconditions for avoiding similar mistakes in the future. Furthermore, moral assessment and condemnation of committed crimes plays an important role in the education of young generations.

7. The Assembly stresses that the Council of Europe is well placed for a serious discussion on the subject. In accordance with its fundamental principles it should condemn the crimes and violation of human rights under the Franco regime at international level.

8. The Assembly therefore calls on the Committee of Ministers to:

8.1. adopt an official declaration for the international condemnation of the Franco regime and to mark 18 July 2006 as the official day of condemnation of the Franco regime as it marks the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the Spanish civil war and Franco’s overthrow of the government;

8.2. urge the Spanish Government to:

8.2.1. set up a national committee to investigate violations of human rights committed under the Franco regime which will submit its report to the Council of Europe;

8.2.2. continue to make available to all historians and researchers all civilian and military archives which may contain documents that can contribute to establishing the truth regarding repression;

8.2.3. set up a permanent exhibition in the underground basilica at the Valle de los Caídos (Valley of the Fallen) outside Madrid – where Franco is buried – explaining how it was built by the republican prisoners;

8.2.4. encourage local authorities to erect memorials as a tribute to the victims of the Franco regime in the capital of Spain and in other major Spanish cities.

4. Two months later, the European Union Committee of Ministers met to consider the issue. The result of their deliberations was the following brief official condemnation of the human rights violations committed by the Franco régime, accompanied by diplomatic glosses on Spain’s subsequent achievement of democracy and on the need to condemn all totalitarian régimes.

Ministers’ Deputies
CM Documents
CM/AS(2006)Rec1736 final 5 May 2006

Need for international condemnation of the Franco regime
Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1736 (2006)
(Reply adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 May 2006 at the 963rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

1. Like the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers condemns the repeated serious human rights violations by the Franco regime and agrees that it is important to remember the crimes by all totalitarian regimes so as to avoid repeating the errors of the past. In this connection, the Committee of Ministers acknowledges the courageous steps taken in this respect in Spain itself.

2. At the same time, the Committee of Ministers notes that Spain’s transition to democracy shortly after the end of the Franco regime is an example to all other countries undergoing the same process. It welcomes the fact that the year 2007 will be the 30th anniversary of Spain’s accession to the Council of Europe, which was made possible by that successful transition.

3. As regards the specific recommendations addressed by the Assembly, the Committee of Ministers believes that all totalitarian regimes without distinction, including the Franco regime, should be made the object of a declaration or official day of the kind which the Assembly suggests. Singling out one regime rather than another might create the mistaken impression that some totalitarian regimes are worthier of condemnation than others, whereas all of them collectively merit our reprobation. (https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=996207&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75)

Although the lengthier and stronger Parliamentary Assembly Recommendations (Section 3 above) were reported in the Spanish Press and are referred to in Wikipedia (English), in the articles Francisco Franco and Spain under Franco), this final official European Union condemnation of Franco’s régime (however brief) has not been publicised (possibly because of its brevity and diplomatic patina) and is (so far) missing from Wikipedia (in English and French, but is present in one of the relevant Spanish Wikipedia articles: Dictadura de Franco).

The Fragmentation of Information in Wikipedia

(A preliminary analysis, with reference to Spanish Wikipedia’s multiple offerings on the Spanish Civil War / la Guerra Civil Española)

In the Spanish version of Wikipedia (which currently covers a wide range of 467,000 entries; the ‘senior’ English Wikipedia claims 2,859,000 items), there are multiple separate entries on the core subject, Spanish Civil War (Guerra Civil Española), an international encyclopedia topic which has been widely discussed for over 70 years and which, according to some estimates, has inspired 12,000 books and pamphlets in many languages.

The widely dispersed multiplicity of Wikipedia entries on many subjects is at least partly due to Wikipedia’s own intricate rules, prohibitions and recommendations and its faithful Users’ successful or unsuccessful adherence to them. For example, in specific advice to new wikipedian contributors, Wikipedia’s strong preference for short articles is stressed and an optimal length of 32 KB (i.e. about 1,000 words, or 2 and a half pages) is recommended. Another cause of data fragmentation is a process which Wikipedia itself terms ‘ forks’ or ‘forking’. This splitting of a topic into various entries (with different titles) is the subject of a set of basic labyrinthine Wikipedia rules and analyses (in its English version) which are intended to demarcate the difference between a “Content fork” (two articles on one topic, particularly in cases of disagreements or similar difficulties among contributors and ‘referees’), which Wikipedia strictly forbids, and a POV (Point of View) Fork, which it recommends, notably cases separating Critical aspects from the Topic itself, as is often the case in topics where a set of political, religious or spiritual beliefs and activities is offered in one entry and any criticism of these beliefs and activities, or a description of the relevant Organisation, is relegated to a separate (and often alphabetically distant) entry. However, in addition to this sort of approved dilution of major (or controversial) topics, many unrecommended content forks also occur on Wikipedia, and remain there, without being deleted or fused with other major aspects, as Wikipedia expressly stipulates. (See WP:CFORK and WP:POVFORK.) A collateral consequence of these anomalies is that, to be more realistic, Wikipedia’s statistics for its total entries should be adjusted to take this bloating factor into account.

A further problem is that, unless in this medium which offers instant direct hyperlinks, very comprehensive linkage is provided between fragmented segments of information on a core topic, the encyclopedia reader will not have easy access to enough of these ‘forks’. This is precisely what seems to have occurred in the case of the multiple Spanish entries for the Civil War. Here the informational value of the sum of knowledge contributed is compromised by the inadequate number of links between an accumulation of well over one hundred related entries, especially between the major ones, often of the ‘Point of View’ type (for example, Terror Rojo en España, Represión franquista, Bando nacional (Nationalist), Bando republicano).

The rest of this brief article will present evidence gleaned from a survey of the information offered by the Spanish Wikipedia in relation to a very prominent and complex topic: ‘la Guerra Civil Española’

List of Articles

Guerra Civil Española

This general article should be the longest and principal one, with adequate references and Hyperlinks to relevant related Wikipedia entries. Unfortunately, official action has been taken to freeze or mummify it in a ‘protected’ form, presumably to guard against the risk of vandalism, perhaps in the wake of the recent strong debates in Spain relating to ‘revisionism’ on the subject of the War, the participants, the antecedents and aftermath. Therefore, in protected entries, Wikipedia’s celebrated openness to all contributors is suspended, until the protection is lifted by the ‘burócratas’(trusted supervisors). In this case, it means that no changes can be made to improve the inadequate links to other articles and that the inexplicably inadequate ‘Bibliography’ of 5 items (only one of which is a major one) lowers the value of the entry and its use to readers. (The existence of this pathetic Bibliography in an otherwise lengthy and informative article is an interesting example of the weaker aspects of the otherwise fabulous Wikipedia project, which insists so strongly on the backing of reputable sources and one or two other problematical criteria.)

The diversity of many other segments and the presence and absence of direct links within the ‘Guerra Civil Española’ topic form the body of this article.

Francisco Franco

From the list of links offered above and below, the only ones given are: ‘Franquismo’ and ‘Simbología del Franquismo’.

Dictadura de Francisco Franco

Franquismo

Terror Rojo en España (Red Terror in Spain)
This includes a section on ‘Terror Blanco y Rojo’ and a few paragraphs in English, from Antony Beevor and Stanley Payne, probably from the English Wikipedia entry: ‘White Terror in Spain’.

Valle de los Caídos
(An unbalanced entry, with no links.)

Personajes relevantes de la Guerra Civil Española

Simbología del franquismo

Cronología de la Guerra Civil Española

Bando nacional (The Nationalist Side, i.e. The Franco Uprising)
Brief. Links to: ‘Guerra Civil Española’ and ‘Nacionalismo español’.

Bando republicano (The Republican Side, i.e. The variegated Supporters of the Left-wing Republican Government)
Equally brief. Links to: ‘G.C.E.’ and ‘Revolución española de 1936’.

Ofensiva de Cataluña

Guerra Civil Española en el País Vasco (… in the Basque Country)

There is also a considerable number of articles (short and long) on the war, battles in other different regions of Spain, atrocities, victims, etc.

Wikipedia entries published during the current vigorous debate in Spain, since 2004

Since 2000, many revisionist books and some replies have been published in Spain (some of them are bestsellers) on different aspects of the Spanish Civil War, whose 70^th anniversary was greatly celebrated by both ‘sides’ – and others – in 2006. Moreover, in the 2004 elections, the Socialist Party and its allies dramatically defeated the ruling nationalist conservative Partido Popular, a slightly ironic replay of 1934, two years before the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War.

Ley de memoria histórica de España
Old controversial claims have finally been promoted in this new law. Links: ‘Franquismo’, ‘Guerra Civil Española’ and ‘Víctimas de la Guerra Civil Española’.

Represión política en España
Published in August 2006 (apparently by Professor Ángel Luis Alfaro, one of the few wikipedians who do not hide behind a pseudonym). Links to: ‘Guerra Civil Española’ and ‘Franquismo’.

A part of this historical entry covers the Civil War. The Bibliography is brief, but interesting. A few items should be added. Unlike many other entries, this one offers many useful links to entries dealing with important topics of the Civil War.

Víctimas de la Guerra Civil Española
First published on 23 October 2005 by User ‘Nemo’. Links to all of the following:
Guerra Civil Española
Revolución social española de 1936
Depuración del Magisterio español tras la Guerra Civil Española
Causa General
Anexo:Mortalidad en la Guerra Civil Española, por inscripción en juzgados
Víctimas de la Guerra Civil en Navarra
Víctimas de la persecución religiosa durante la Guerra Civil Española
Masacre de Badajoz
Matanzas de Paracuellos
Crímenes del túnel de la muerte de Usera
Las checas
Víctimas de la Guerra Civil en Cantabria
Masacre de la carretera Málaga-Almería
Las Trece Rosas
Niños de Rusia
Represión política en España
Represión franquista
Exilio republicano

Víctimas de la persecución religiosa durante la Guerra Civil Española
Links to: ‘G.C.E.’ and ‘Revolución española de 1936’.

Depuración del Magisterio español tras la Guerra Civil Española
A long essay on an alleged Francoist postwar injustice, published on 29 January 2007 by an anonymous non-User. No links are given.

Causa General

An investigation into crimes committed during the “Red” occupation of Spain, ordered by Franco in 1940. A short stub, posted on 5 February 2008.

Represión franquista
First published on 13 September 2008. Its counterpart in the English Wikipedia is ‘White Terror (Spain)’ but this version is briefer. It offers a link with ‘Represión política en Espana’ but, because of the contents of ‘Terror Rojo…’ (see above), this entry appears to be superfluous and therefore in need of deletion.

Categoriás y Anexos

These general ‘Categories’ and ‘Appendices’ offer links to further lists of entries, or to specific details relevant to the main topic: the Civil War in Spain. Among the latter is the following very recent item:

Anexo:Imputados en el auto de 16 de octubre de 2008 del Juzgado Central de Instrucción nº 005 de la Audiencia Nacional

This presents a list of 35 deceased top Francoist officials (including the ‘Caudillo’ himself) who were declared to be no longer legally responsible for illegal detention and crimes against humanity during the Civil War and Postwar periods.

The following Appendix is a painstaking gathering of data on Civil War deaths as recorded in Municipal Registries.
Anexo:Mortalidad en la Guerra Civil Española, por inscripción en juzgados

It was first published by User ‘Jorab’ on 20 November 2007. This Basque ‘wikipedista’ is an example of those dedicated individual contributors of data who supply the major part of Wikipedia information (in all languages), with a total of 9939 contributions to his credit – most of them on similar detailed aspects of the Spanish Civil War in his region. (All statistical details like Users’  numbers of contributions, dates, etc., as well as the contributions themselves, are carefully recorded, updated and are instantly available from the Wikipedia system.)

Categoría:Guerra Civil Española
Another reference list of articles on the War.

Categoría:Franquismo
Another list of articles about Francoism.

Categoría:Batallas de la Guerra Civil Española
34 separate articles.

Categoría:Víctimas de la represión en la zona republicana
Articles on individual victims or groups of victims in the Republican Government zones.

Categoría:Víctimas de la represión en la zona franquista
Articles on individual victims or groups of victims of the Franco-held zones.

The above list may be of some use as a reading guide for the subject under examination, but it would have been more appropriate if Wikipedia had devised a better way of presenting its major or multi-faceted topics. As can easily be appreciated, the content of the above articles is encyclopedic in quantity but the Wikipedia way of arranging it and presenting it to Internet readers needs further refining.

Translation 8. Fluency in foreign languages. The case of Dr Condoleezza Rice

Three days after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s momentary embarrassment about the Reset button on 9 March 2009 (see my brief earlier blog), the official American mistranslation of the name on the diplomatic gift to the Russian Foreign Minister was still garnering media news. Joseph Curl, of The Washington Times (not to be confused with the more prestigious Washington Post) reported, in an article titled ‘State, media ‘button’ lips over Russian gaffe’, that he had tried in vain to get an explanation from the State Department of how such an error could have been made. Towards the end of his article, Curl reports the concern of Roger Aranof (of the organisation Accuracy in Media) that no media representative had asked a question at Press briefings after the unfortunate linguistic gaffe. He quotes Aranof as saying, “If this had happened in the Bush administration, to President Bush in particular or even to Condi Rice, it would have gotten a whole lot more publicity and ridicule by the mainstream media.” To which Curl adds this comment, “Then again, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would likely have caught the mistake – she’s fluent in Russian.” (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/12/state-media-button-lips-over-russian-gaffe/?page=2)

The latter is the latest of hundreds (probably thousands) of echoes in the media and on the Internet of the assertion that Dr Condoleezza Rice (Hillary Clinton’s predecessor as Secretary of State) is “fluent in Russian”, or an “expert in the Russian language”, and speaks French, German and Spanish (at unspecified levels). To my knowledge Rice has neither claimed nor disowned this significant ability. Furthermore, during her recent four years of intense exposure as Secretary of State to the news cameras and microphones at international meetings and official discussions with foreigners, I cannot recall her saying anything on camera in Russian.

Preliminary comment on fluency, in foreign or non-native languages

Simple references to fluency in a foreign language (FL) and the epithet ‘fluent in language X’ are basically vague and subjective judgements. Both words derive from the base meaning of ‘to flow’ (fluid, etc.) They refer to a person’s proficiency in a language, often depending on the linguistic background and proficiency in foreign languages of the person making the judgement. As commonly used to describe people, especially in the Anglophone media and by persons who do not speak or read foreign languages (including many journalists), both terms are very complimentary and tend to imply a high degree of FL proficiency and also tend to relate to proficiency in comprehending and using the spoken FL. However, there are other important fluencies: proficiency in reading and writing. In intellectual and professional life, notably in the academic world, the latter pair of proficiencies are of much more practical and professional use and it is these language aspects which are emphasised on graduate language courses leading to a relevant PhD speciality, for example Russian (or, formerly Soviet) studies. The main foreign language career need of graduates will normally be to read and assess written texts in the foreign language; spoken proficiency is therefore often a minor consideration and tends to be at a lower and more practical conversational level. This is a well known fact of academic life.

Assessing fluency (proficiency) is a much more complex matter. The European Union (or Community) of 27 nations, which conducts so much of its voluminous political and economic business in multiple languages (at astronomical expense), offers a very sophisticated table of degrees of expertise with a (foreign) language. There are 6 grades, from A1 (elementary) to C2 (near native ability). (http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/LanguageSelfAssessmentGrid/en)

For the specific needs of the U.S. Government, five levels of spoken (S) and reading (R) skills are described in the classification issued by the United States Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. State Department:

2: Limited working proficiency

2S Able to satisfy routine special demands and limited work requirements.

2R Sufficient comprehension to read simple, authentic written material in a form equivalent to usual printing or typescript on familiar subjects.

3: General professional proficiency

3S Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations.

3R Able to read within a normal range of speed and with almost complete comprehension.

4: Advanced professional proficiency

4S Able to use the language fluently and accurately on all levels.

4R Nearly native ability to read and understand extremely difficult or abstract prose, colloquialisms and slang.

5: Functional native proficiency

5S Speaking proficiency is functionally equivalent to that of a highly articulate well-educated native speaker.

5R Reading proficiency is functionally equivalent to that of the well-educated native reader.

Note: This official document, understandably, does not mention Level one: Elementary proficiency, which could be summarised as basic tourist ability in the foreign language. (http://www.amexdc.com/Pictures/FSI%20Language%20Ratings.pdf )

It should be emphasised that the differences between each of those grades of proficiency are exponential (rather like earthquake grades on the Richter Scale). One does not move up a numerical notch without substantial effort. For example, a Conference Interpreter would need grade 5 proficiency. (The more detailed prescriptions in Chapter 4 of U.S. Aid Handbook 28 (http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/handbooks/hb28ch4.pdf) give a better idea of these different skill levels.)

Bearing in mind those rigorous standards and the increasing dominance of English as the principal international lingua franca, it is not surprising that citizens and officials from English-speaking (‘Anglophone’) countries have had a poor record in foreign language skills, especially in contrast with citizens of European countries. In USA, Secretaries of State, including the present incumbent, Clinton, have tended to follow this convenient pattern of not bothering (and not having to bother) with proficiency in foreign languages (Rice is an exception to this pattern, like her European-American predecessors Albright, Schultz and Kissenger and President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

*

A survey of the available Internet evidence about Dr Rice’s Russian proficiency revealed the following.

Dr Rice’s three university degrees are in political science. In her undergraduate degree, language courses are sometimes mentioned vaguely in biographical comments but the number, type and levels are not specified. I have found no specific reference to “Condy” Rice studying Russian (although she must have done this). In the Wikipedia article on her (which doesn’t mention fluency in Russian), Dr Rice is described as an expert on the Soviet Union (and indeed she served as such under President George H.W. Bush). Also mentioned by wikipedians is her PhD in Political Science written at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver (a dissertation focusing on military policy and politics in Czechoslovakia.

In view of all the complimentary references to fluency, the failure to find any concrete facts on Dr Rice’s Russian studies was frustrating. After all, to be fluent in a language, a university course in Russian 101 (and, preferably, 201) would be a good basis, but this is unlikely to get you very far along the path of being proficient enough in the language to converse on social, political and diplomatic themes in international gatherings – although it is also true that, in the social events connected with international meetings, English is the lingua franca – which is part of the reason why many “Anglo” diplomats and politicians do not feel the need to invest considerable effort necessary for attaining fluency in a foreign language. Nevertheless, some knowledge of the interlocutor’s language can create or strengthen empathy between officials of two nationalities. (A very notable recent “Anglo” exception to this rule of thumb is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia, whose fluent command of Mandarin has been recorded several times on TV and radio News and has achieved star status and much kudos for him in China.)

Further Internet searches for specific references to Condoleezza Rice speaking in other tongues, especially Russian, reveal only a few clues, but these are quite useful.

Several parts of the following much-quoted Fox News report on 21 April 2005 (attributed to Associated Press) add pieces to the fluency puzzle. Here Dr Rice is responding to Russian callers’ questions on a Russian radio talkback programme. While it is not clear if the questions are in Russian (or translated for her) or in English, it is patently clear that her monosyllabic ‘ Da’ and ‘ Nyet’ before answering in English do not prove fluency or confidence in Russian. The italicised bracketed […] comments below are my observations on the language proficiency (or fluency) displayed.

“Rice Says in Russian She’ll Run for President” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154104,00.html)

“One day you will run for president?” Rice was asked on Ekko Moskvy Radio.

“President, da, da,” Rice readily replied. That, as nearly everyone knows, even if they are not fluent in Russian as Rice is believed to be, means yes. [“believed to be”]

“Nyet, nyet, nyet, nyet,” Rice quickly added, taking herself out of the race as fast as she’d gotten into it. [Alternatively, perhaps she had misunderstood the question, if it was asked in Russian. But that possibility would undermine the whole Fox ‘scoop’.]

“The former academic, whose specialty was Soviet studies, is fluent in Russian – usually. Moments before, in response to a series of friendly questions from listeners, Rice had begun her answers by saying “Da”. Her mood was clearly upbeat as she assured one listener, in Russian, that “the United States and the American people respect the great culture of Russia, respect the great people of Russia, and we know that Russia has a very good future ahead of it.”

[Such a platitudinous diplomatic mantra is easy enough to memorise beforehand and even to have written in one’s notes. Russian 101, or 201.]

“She told another listener, in English, “The United States is not an enemy of Russia.”

[This is puzzling because the Russian version would only require minimal Russian 101 level knowledge: five (or six) Russian words for nine English words. Why not make the effort?]

“And when a Russian girl asked how she could become like Condoleezza Rice, she replied in English, “I don’t want to talk about myself.”

[Another easy short sentence delivered in English, when the listener would have been delighted and impressed to hear it in Russian.]

“She did, but only when the caller pressed. I enjoy very much what I do now. I have great friends and family,” Rice said.

[Simple words, requiring little ‘fluency’, but still delivered in English.]

“Rice also acknowledged in her reply, switching to Russian, that the Russian language “is very difficult…. It is difficult to speak without mistakes.”

[More Russian 101– four words: Russkiy yazyk ochen’ trudniy, plus another four words for the important final admission: Trudno govorit’ byez oshibok. Surely it should not be ‘trudno’ for a fluent person.]

“And she proved it a few minutes later by accidentally applying for the job of U.S. president.”

[Maybe. Maybe not. See my comment above on the possible misunderstanding.]

In another report on that same occasion (21 April 2005), which was a golden opportunity to speak directly with the people of Moscow and establish a rapport with them, prior to President Bush’s visit to Moscow in connection with the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II, Condoleezza Rice gave answers to email questions in “a freewheeling, hourlong interview on radio that included the geopolitical and the personal as she tried to reassure listeners that the United States was not working against their country.” At the end of the programme she “ventures briefly into Russian”, says she is out of practice but was still described politely by a listener as speaking “fluently”. [“out of practice”]

(Tyler Marshall and David Holley

In what may be yet another (blunter) European account of the two incidents, supplementary details are added:

“Rice BUSTED. Dr. Fraud can’t speak Russian after all.” (Friday, 22 April 2005 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) (www.guerrillanews.com/forum/thread.php?id=4626)

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried out her rusty Russian in a Moscow radio interview Wednesday, only to get caught out by a question on whether she might run for president. “Da (Yes),” Rice answered in Russian, before realizing her misunderstanding and hastily adding “Nyet” (No) — seven times.

“It’s too complicated to answer!” Rice, in Russia to meet President Vladimir Putin, started out in English. “It is an opportunity for me to come back to Russia, a place I love very much. I love the culture and the language.” “She then switched into Russian, but quickly hit trouble. “Apparently meaning to say that she would like to do her next interview in the language of her host, she chose a verb that sounded more like “to earn money” than the Russian for “to do.”

All the indications in the above exchanges are that Rice is not fluent in spoken Russian, or chose not to be fluent on these occasions even though her rapport with her Russian listeners (and, indirectly, that of the U.S. Government and President, whom she was representing) might have been enhanced.

Decidedly more barbed is the following comment by John H. Brown, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer (1981-2003), who obviously has an axe to grind. In ‘10 Percent Intellectual: The Mind of Condoleezza Rice’, Brown, in a section on Speaking in Tongues, comments:

“An important insight into how well Dr. Rice is able to understand societies distant from American shores is her putative knowledge of foreign languages, which has been hyped no end by her political supporters. “In addition to English, she speaks Russian, French, German, and Spanish,” gushes the Race 4 2008 website, […] Her lack of proficiency with Russian was ridiculed in April 2005 by Pravda (admittedly an anti-U.S. publication) …

“As for Rice’s knowledge of French, which she studied at an early age, she herself admitted in 2006 that while she could understand a conversation with President Jacques Chirac of France in his native tongue, “I can’t speak it, because I was never very good at French.”

The mention of a poor speaking ability may offer an important clue in the Rice case. It is worth repeating that many people (including PhD candidates and graduates) find speaking a foreign language much less vital and more troublesome than reading or understanding it. It is, in fact, not only possible but acceptable for an academic expert on, say, Spanish literature, not to be fluent in spoken Spanish.

At the end of a later interview (12 October 2007), on Russian RTR TV, with Sergei Brilev, also in English, the following exchange takes place following a discussion of aspects of foreign policy and nuclear missiles.

SECRETARY RICE: […] We share great global threats. We share common threats. I was a student of the old relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States. We really didn’t have much –

QUESTION: How do you call yourself these days — a Sovietologist?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we’ve dropped that term, clearly. I’m very pleased that I also had firm grounding in the study of Russia. And I think for all of us, we see a tremendous evolution from the time when really about the only thing we had in common with the Soviet Union was we didn’t want to annihilate each other. And so all of our interactions, our military interactions, had that character to them. We had to be suspicious of each other. We were each other’s great enemy. We were each other’s great threat. That isn’t the case today.” [Italics added]

A fluent Russian speaker could have delivered that last important non-technical message in Russian but the interesting thing to note about Rice’s English response here is that, although some might take it for granted that this “study of Russia” included an equally firm grounding in the Russian written and spoken language, Dr Rice chooses not to mention her Russian language studies at all.

More closely relevant to Rice’s observed behaviour are the reported statements of Glenn Kessler (a Washington Post political columnist) at the launch of his 2007 biography of Rice (The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy). Kessler, who covered many of Rice’s foreign visits and had sometimes flown in the same plane, mentions her once-weekly classes with a State Department Russian interpreter. (This indicates an imprecise level or type of Russian competence. Was the tuition in Russian conversation or was it devoted to the comprehension and translation of written texts?)

Kessler is also reported here as revealing the following ‘gossipy’ detail about a conversation held during a closed meeting between Rice and the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel: “‘In their private meeting, Merkel, a fluent Russian speaker who had trained as a physical chemist in the former East Germany, teasingly tested Rice’s rusty Russian,’ he writes [in his biography], citing Wolfgang Ischinger, Germany’s ambassador to London who formerly was Germany’s ambassador to the U.S.” If we assume Ambassador Ischinger’s account of the incident to be true, it would indicate to linguists (but not necessarily to those who are not familiar with levels of competence in languages) that the Russians and others were aware that Rice was not fluent in spoken Russian. Such a level would not enable her to talk confidently and interestingly to her official Russian interlocutors, nor to understand them on highly technical diplomatic and political topics. (The above assertions are taken from a 7 September 2007 report by the Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti) on Kessler’s book launch speech)

There is some circumstantial Internet and media evidence that Russians have long been aware of Rice’s lack of fluency with their language and, perhaps, of her sensibility about this topic. It may even have become a private ‘in’ joke for them. For example, consider the end of the Moscow U.S. Embassy’s transcript of a wide-ranging interview in English with Dr Rice in Moscow, on the Russian TV station NTV, on 20 April 2005. (The same date as the previous three radio accounts!)

MR. PIVOVAROV: Madame Secretary, it’s widely known that you speak fluent Russian.

SECRETARY RICE: [In Russian.] (Laughter.)

MR. PIVOVAROV: Do you ever use it when talking to Russian officials, and does it help you?

SECRETARY RICE: [In Russian.]

MR. PIVOVAROV: Do you use it in talks with Mr. Putin?

SECRETARY RICE: [In Russian.] (Laughter.)

MR. PIVOVAROV: Last question. You already met with our channel last time when you were in Moscow one year ago; and when my colleague asked you maybe you could play something on the piano, you said, next time probably. Is this the time, Madame Secretary?

SECRETARY RICE: Next time. (Laughter.) [In Russian.]

MR. PIVOVAROV: Madame Secretary, thank you very much.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. (end transcript)

Mr Alexei Pivovarov’s sudden change of topic may not be entirely innocent. Dr Rice’s unrecorded replies in Russian to simple questions which invite basically Yes/No answers are unlikely to prove the sort of fluency for which she is constantly lauded in the Western media. Quality of accent would be clear, but that is easier to acquire than fluency in a language. In fact, her answers to the four questions could quite easily have been along the following Russian 101 lines. Such basic responses in any language are always greatly appreciated by speakers of the ‘foreign’ language, who are only too happy to praise the foreign speaker, just for making the effort.

Da. Ya znayu. (Yes, I know.)

Nyet. Eto nye nuzhno. (No. It isn’t necessary.) OR: Inogda. Da. (Sometimes. Yes.)

Konechno! (Of course!)

V sleduyushchiy raz. (‘Next Time’ – which was her instinctive first reply, in English.)

[These imaginary answers were composed with my elementary knowledge of spoken Russian, somewhere within the FSI’s Grade 1.]

So, was Dr Condoleezza Rice really fluent in the Russian language as well as being an undoubted expert in Russian and Soviet affairs? On the basis of the pieces of evidence presented above, mainly from the media, and her own diffident remarks and repeated hesitancy to speak ‘fluent’ Russian on Russian radio and TV, a reasonable estimate might place Condoleezza Rice’s proficiency in spoken Russian not much higher than Grade 1 (with a possible Grade 2 Reading ability) on the U.S. FSI scale (or its equivalent on the European Union scale). On the other hand, the impression given to the public by the barrage of media and official accolades of her ‘fluency in Russian’ (for the sophisticated needs of someone in her position) is that Rice’s proficiency was equivalent to the more demanding Grade 3 of the Foreign Service Institute scale, the one described as ‘General professional proficiency’ .

Since Dr Rice herself appears to make no claims of fluency in the Russian language, could this conundrum be the result of over-zealous Public Relations work by Dr Rice’s assistants and spin doctors?

Screen culture may be changing our brains

This theory of Professor Susan Greenfield (and ongoing research by her and, presumably, others) deserves the widest circulation especially among those concerned about the effects of prolonged interaction with computer games and the many social networks which have proliferated on Web 2.0.

This important interview by the eminent TV journalist Kerry O’Brien has just been screened on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s 7.30 Report (ABC TV) on Thursday, 19/03/2009.

Introduction: “Baroness Professor Susan Greenfield, an eminent brain expert who commands enormous respect in her field has sounded a cautionary note about the screen culture of the computer age that she says may be changing our brains, in ways that could have a serious impact on personality and behaviour. As a pioneering scientist she heads a multi-disciplinary Oxford University team investigating neuro-degenerative disorders and also the Oxford Centre for the Science of the Mind, exploring the physical basis of consciousness. Professor Susan Greenfield speaks with Kerry O’Brien from Adelaide.”

Here are some excerpts from the lengthy interview.
Kerry O’Brien: “Susan Greenfield, you’ve warned that screen culture may be changing our brains. You obviously believe that it’s not a change for the better. First of all, what do you mean by screen culture?”

Susan Greenfield: “By screen culture, I mean literally that; a world of two dimensions where for six hours a day or more, people in the western developed world, more particularly kids, are spending time either playing games or on social networking sites and thereby putting themselves in an environment that is very much in the here and now, that has very strong audio and visual sensations, where at the press of a button you get instant feedback from whatever you’re doing.

“But at the same time, you’re perhaps removed from some of the aspects that we take for granted. Those of us who are older or those of us who are born in the 20th century, that we taken for granted. Things like metaphor, abstract concepts, logical narrative, conceptual frame works, long attention spans, imagination. The kind of areas we can explore in more detail, if you like.

“But it’s primarily a world of a small child, a world of the here and now, a world of a sound byte, a world of an instant frozen moment where nothing has consequences, and where everything is literal. Where nothing has a meaning, you’re not saying one thing in terms of something else, you’re saying literally, what you see is what you get.”
*
Read or view (13 minutes) the rest of this fascinating and alarming dialogue at:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2521139.htm, or directly from the 7.30 Report website.

There is also a further 2 minute video clip of a web extra: ‘Extended interview with Susan Greenfield’.
Just another two appetisers in case you have not already opened the link:
Susan Greenfield: “What we know in neuroscience and this is getting really exciting, is that the brain is what we call plastic. That’s to say it’s very sensitive to the environment and that’s why human beings are so brilliant at occupying ecological niches than any other species on the planet. We don’t run fast, we don’t see particularly well, we’re not particularly strong – but what we do fantastically, more than any other species, is that we learn, we adapt.

“And because of this so-called plasticity, this means that your brain is different from anyone else’s for the last hundreds of thousands of years we’ve stalked the plan and it will be never the same again. And every moment you’re alive it’s modified and changed and revised by every little experience, literally leaving its mark on your brain.

“So if that is the case, it follows that the environment in which that brain is developing will be very much influenced by the kind of features of that environment. And if, for the first time – and this is my reasoning – that environment has changed in an unprecedented way, if it’s bombarding you with boom bang and bang images, what I call the “yuck and wow” scenario where every moment you’re having something flash up in your face and bombard your ears. All I’m suggesting is that that might drive brain connections and drive the configuration of your brain cell circuitry into the kind of mindset that mandates a short attention span.”
*

Susan Greenfield: “I think it can be a problem, like everything, if it’s done to excess. I personally don’t have a social networking site but I certainly communicate, like most people now with access to computers, through email.

“Of course, that’s not a problem. It becomes a problem if it’s your main form of communication. I met a young person who boasted they had 900 friends. And that made me rather sad as to what he thought a friend really was and what kind of quality of relationship that you might have with one, if there’s any one of 900. And how often, if you have 900 friends, how much time of the day do you spend in sustaining a friendship with 900 people when there’s only 24 hours of the day. And however advanced or slick the culture, the inescapable fact: you only have 24 hours a day and if you spend six hours doing one thing, that excludes you, by definition, of doing other things.”

*

Mistranslation 7. U.S. Expertise in the Russian Language

Hectares of print and cubic metres of ether have already been filled by reports of Hillary Clinton’s staffers’ gaffe in mistranslating into Russian the word for ‘Reset’, on a mechanical button which the U.S. Secretary of State publicly presented to her opposite number, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, as a symbolic gesture of , well, ‘glaznost’, perhaps, between the two nations. (Geneva, 6 March 2009)

As she presented Lavrov with the tiny box, Clinton made a self-conscious remark typical of public speakers (especially “Anglos”) who know little of foreign languages and are constantly dealing directly with foreign dignitaries who speak perfect English: “We [!] worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” Since the word printed on the button was Peregruzka, Lavrov replied, gently: “No. You got it wrong. … This means ‘overcharge.’” [ Or ‘overload’] The Russian Foreign Minister went on to explain that the word needed was Perezagruzka. With a nervous throaty guffaw, Secretary Clinton instantly delivered her ‘spin’, both evasive and aggressive: “Well, we won’t let you do that to us, I promise.” The incident ended very amicably indeed.

(See, for example: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/07/us.russia/index.html#cnnSTCText)

(For the record and for language buffs, both of those words are derived from the basic Russian noun gruz, which means load or weight.)

In one blog on this mistranslation, I read the acerbic comment that although George W. was frequently pilloried for his less than perfect command of English, he had at least chosen as Secretary of State a person who was an expert in the Russian language. This set me thinking, and then searching. Hundreds (probably thousands) of Internet articles on Dr Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton’s predecessor, repeat over and over again that she is “fluent in Russian”, an “expert in the Russian language”, and speaks French, German and Spanish (level unspecified). And yet with her 4 years of exposure to the news cameras and microphones at international meetings and official discussions with foreigners, I cannot recall ever having heard her say anything on camera in Russian. Since this may be because I haven’t been paying much attention to this peripatetic lady, I delved a little deeper, especially into her biography.

The extensive results of my delving are worth sharing in a separate  article.  Just posted.

More research results on Sathya Sai Baba’s divine claims

For the tiny minority of readers and visitors who are interested in my esoteric research into the divine claims of Sathya Sai Baba, two further analyses are available for consideration.

1. ‘Sathya Sai Baba’s Credibility Gap: Contributions by John Hislop’

2. ‘Sathya Sai Baba’s Public Use of English and its Perception by Devotees. Insights into his Charismatic Influence’
*