babelblogs

hosted by cafebabel.com

Chris' Babel Blog

The occasional rants and musings of the UK based writer and Cafe Babel correspondent.

To content | To menu | To search

social commentary { Keyword }

11

11

2007

The Lunatics Talk About Asylum...

It seems that you cannot pick up a newspaper or watch the news without encountering an item on immigration. If the proclamations of doom springing from the pages of the Daily Mail are to be believed the The British Isles, so overburdened by the weight of illegal immigrants, will soon flip on its axis and capsize - leaving millions of Brits clinging to bits of garden furniture and desperately trying to make it to the safe haven of France.

That's assuming that the French let them in of course...

Reflecting on this over a quiet pint in my local pub, my attention was drawn by a rather plump, obnoxious woman in (possibly) her late 30s. From the way she was dressed I would assume she would be on a reasonable income, but the idiotic things she was coming out with just go to prove that intelligence and financial security are not inextricably linked. I was so amazed by her rant, I took it upon myself to transcribe it for posterity.

"I don't think these immigrants should be allowed to come over here. I mean many of them do not speak no good English. They come over here, take our jobs. This is our country, this is our language and they should be prepared for that. And I don't care if they are escaping torture, they were born there and should stay where they are. I pay my taxes to help British people, not scrounging asylum seekers"

A few minutes later she piped up again. By now the conversation had turned to buying property in Spain (yes it wouldn't be Britain without talking about house prices). "I'd like to live there" proffered our portly commentator, "but they would have to speak English because I wouldn't want to have to learn Spanish".

Thankfully they were so engaged in conversation, they didn't notice the smug-looking man in the corner writing all this down and smirking into his Guinness.

27

10

2007

A Bit of Romance

Romeo and Juliet When they met again, her heart had turned to stone.

I sometimes wonder if we over-romanticise relationships.

Perhaps Romeo and Juliet got it right. End it whilst you are still wrapped up in the other person, still in the throes of passion, when you genuinely believe that it is the two of you against the world. If they hadn’t ended it then, they would have more than likely have faded into history: another statistic, an irrelevant anecdote and an awkward moment when they bumped into one another with new partners.

Deciding not to sacrifice themselves and build a future together, they had the decisive and inevitable talk.

Romeo: I think I love you

Juliet: I think I love you too. Romeo, I was thinking...



Romeo: Aha...

Juliet: Well, I was thinking that living in separate courts is a logistic nightmare.



Romeo: And so difficult these days for young professionals in Verona to get on the housing ladder."

Juliet: I know, the prices have been shooting up since the Renaissance.

Juliet: (Seizing her chance) Well, why don't we pool our resources?

And from that innocuous exchange, they move in together and things soon begin to change. They still have fun, but instead of long weekend mornings in bed, spontaneous adventures and mini-breaks they start to spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about whose parents they will spend Christmas at (ooh, the irony). Romeo will get annoyed that he cannot go to the tavern for a few flagons with his mates without getting several messengers (my Shakespearian take on texting) interrupting him and asking to go to the supermarket on his way home. As time goes on they will both stop putting the effort into the relationship and their end will not only be tragic but benignly protracted. What’s more all the happy times they shared together will be conveniently forgotten amid a myriad of bitterness and conjecture.

This week I have been pondering a difficult question, that every man has probably considered at one time or another and a conundrum that has fleshed out many an issue of Cosmopolitan.

Is it possible to be friends with an Ex?

The straw poll that I have done of friends has returned conclusive findings. No way. But I am not so sure. I know people who I have had the most fleeting, random acquaintance with and we have gone on to become friends. Others, where our relationship has bordered on fondness, have disappeared into the ether. I bumped into an example of this a few weeks back (in a lift at Uni to add to the awkwardness) and she fixed me with the sort of venomous stare that one usually reserves for child killers.

What was it that I did wrong, I hear you ask. Did I promise to call and then didn’t? No. Did I run off with her flatmate? No. My only failing was having the honesty to tell her that I didn’t want a relationship. At the time I was enjoying the novelty of being single and the thought of reaching my mid-20s cash rich, selfish and morally ambiguous held a certain allure. I would have quite happily maintained a platonic friendship, but any such thought was deemed an anathema.

Perhaps being able to stay friends, like much in life, comes down to a question of intelligence and maturity.

So if you are out drinking tonight and notice two people looking frostily at each other across the club, remember that they could have been the next Romeo and Juliet if only the monotony of reality hadn’t got in the way.

01

09

2007

Diana Inc. © ® ™

Coincidence is a funny thing, and I found it particularly apt that on the tenth anniversary of the death of Princess Diana, I was proof reading a philosophy paper entitled “Life after Breath”. Whilst the paper in question appraised Wittgenstein and posthumous interpretations of Nefertiti, it could have equally looked at the image of Diana – that most iconic of late twentieth century figures.

Diana.jpg

I in no way claim to be a Royalist, and hold those who fawn uncritically over the monarchy in a kind of pitiful disdain – around the same level as Reality TV aficionados and those who consume their parochial, bitter, hate-infused World view verbatim from the pages of The Daily Mail. I do, however, concede that Diana did some sterling work in bringing the causes of HIV/Aids and landmines to the attention of the wider World. Like many thousands of unsung people do. Furthermore, I recognise that her death was a tragedy – as is that of any single mother having suffered from demons, depression and who embarked naively into an unloving relationship. I am sure many others suffer an analogous fate each and every year, but we do not hear so much of these tragedies as they are relegated to a tiny column on page twenty or the tenth item on a local news programme.

It would be interesting to discover how many of those so enamoured with the ‘Diana myth’ a decade on disapproved when pictures of Diana ‘cavorting’ with Dodi Fayed were splashed across newsstands in the summer of 1997. And how many rubbed their hands in salubrious glee at seeing the pictures that adorned the front page of The Sun newspaper up until the day she died? Lets make no bones about it, in certain media circles there was coverage bordering on distasteful, closeted racism – consternation that the mother of a future king might be seeing a man of Arabic extraction.

But the moment that she died, with a Stalinist sweep, history was revised and theirs became the most tragic love story since Romeo and Juliet. From tabloid fodder, Diana became ‘The Queen of Hearts’, ‘The People’s Princess’ and the inspiration for a thousand more sycophantic sobriquets.

This in turn fuels the Diana industry. A quick look at Ebay heralds a load of Diana-related merchandise, from plates and books to dolls and (bizarrely) phone-cards. What’s more there seems to be no stopping the Diana-brand cash cow. Meanwhile aides, pallbearers and former confidants fill their boots off the back of her untimely demise. It is distasteful and disrespectful, but morality falls by the wayside when you have newspapers to sell and books to promote. In the case of The Daily Express it is an editorial decision to promote every Diana non-story and tenuous conspiracy theory to the front cover of the paper. But the drones lap it up like the lobotomised cattle they are.

Much has and will be written about how Diana’s death changed British society and, no doubt, many of the commemorative pullouts will gush of ‘our grief’, ‘our loss’ and the ‘the pain we all felt’. I objected to this presumptive, facile breast-beating in 1997 and find it equally offensive a decade on. Yes, Diana’s death was a tragedy for her family. And in years to come our kids might ask where we were when it happened, in much the same vein as we might ask our parents where they were when JFK was shot, or Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon. But the media reaction to Diana’s death spawned a monster that continues to rear its head and louse up a populous of gullible, emotionally-stunted retards that feel it necessary to react to every unfortunate event with a myriad of minute silences, crocodile tears and fatuous expressions of ‘their collective grief’.

Yet, loathed be the person who questions the intellectual premise of ‘the mob’. We have seen this recently with the blanket coverage of the abduction of Madeline McCann. Yes, it is a tragedy that a small child was abducted whilst on holiday, but the media reaction has been disgustingly disproportionate to the event. I wonder how many children in the Third World have died from preventable diseases in the months since the little Western girl went missing? But wait, isn't that what charity wristbands are for?

Now Diana, that was a real tragedy...