A Rambling on Current Events in Bahrain and Beyond
Previous Posts
- رجعنا
- باسم العروبة
- Posting
- Jacko in Bahrain
- Enlighten Me
- Exams Over
- CoolStreaming Schedule
- !ما تغلبونه
- Bahrain Japan CoolStreaming
- Campeones!
Archives
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
Archives by Subject
Links
- soccernet
Politics
Newspapers
Sports
Bahraini Blog
Monday, January 31, 2005
Interesting article
كيف ينظر البحرينيون إلى أنفسهم؟ علم واحد يكفي لفتق المخبوء
الوسط - غسان الشهابي
عندما لعب منتخب البحرين لكرة القدم مع نظيره اليمني في "خليجي 16"، وكان منتخبنا حينذاك في كامل عافيته، فدك المرمى اليمني بالأربعة، كنت أتصل بصديق بحريني من أصل يمني طالبا منه خدمة، فسألته ضاحكا: "من تشجع؟"، فقال: "وهل هذا يحتاج إلى سؤال؟"، فحولت نبرة الضحك إلى شيء من الجد وأعدت عليه السؤال: "من تشجع؟"، فقال من دون تلجلج: "طبعا المنتخب اليمني.
..".لم تصدمني هذه الإجابة ولم أتوقف عندها طويلا، الأمر يبدو طبيعيا على أكثر من صعيد، فلو قيس الأمر على البحرينيين الذين حصلوا
حديثا على الجنسية القطرية أو الإماراتية، أو البريطانية حتى، وأقيمت مباراة بين منتخب وطنهم المستجد الذي يحملون أوراقه، ومنتخب وطنهم الأصيل الذي لم يفتحوا أعينهم إلا عليه، وعلى علمه الذي تسبح دمعة لا إرادية في موج العين كلما رفرف خفاقا مع أنه لا يعدو قماشا، فإلى أين سينتصر القلب؟ إلى الأوراق الثبوتية، أم إلى الهوية الراسخة التي لا تمحى ولو تطاول الزمن؟
تبدو المسألة واضحة بالنسبة إلى الكثير من الحالات من البحرينيين "ويقينا غيرهم" من الذين تركوا بلادهم أملا في عيش أفضل وأكثر كرامة واعتزازا وإطلاقا لقدراتهم، فذهبوا إلى بلاد أخرى، تقرب أو تبعد من وطنهم، ولدواعي العيش الكريم هناك، طوحوا بأوراقهم الثبوتية البحرينية واختاروا أوراق تلك الدول، اختاروها ليجد أبناؤهم مقاعد في مدارس تلك الدول. اختاروها لا كرها أو حقدا على بلادهم الأم، ولكن لأنهم يريدون الحصول على وظيفة وخدمات وتأمين صحي وسكن كما هم مواطنو تلك الدول، وربما اختاروها كي يغيظوا من يريد منعهم من العودة إلى وطنهم في وقت مضى كان فيه المبعدون البحرينيون - الذين لايزالون يتمسكون بأوراقهم الثبوتية الأصلية - يكفيهم أن يصلوا إلى مطار البحرين لتكتحل أعينهم بنخيل سماهيج وببحر قلالي وبـ "حظور" الحد، وببعض أطراف المحرق وجزء يسير من المنامة، ليتم إرجاعهم بعد ساعات إلى حيث أتوا.
المسألة تبدو سهلة لأننا نرى كم هم مهمومون أولئك البحرينيو الهوى، المتعددو الجنسيات، وهم في غرباتهم لا يمكنهم إلا أن ينشدوا إلى الهم المحلي، ويكتبوا فيه، ويزعقوا، ويفلسفوا، ويتهموا، ويوطنوا ويخونوا، وربما جانبوا الصواب كما يجانبه أهلوهم في الداخل، ولكنهم أبدا في مكانهم من قلب بلادهم، أو بلادهم في مكانها من قلوبهم، ولم يتهمهم أحد في تلك الدول - التي انتموا إليها بالأوراق - أنهم ينحازون ويميلون إلى دولهم الأصلية بما يعد خيانة للبلد الذي احتضنهم ومنحهم جواز سفره.
فعندما يقول أمين معلوف في كتابه "الهويات القاتلة": "تتألف هوية كل إنسان من جملة عناصر لا تقتصر على تلك الواردة في السجلات الرسمية"، فإنه يضع الأمر في نصابه، فهناك بون شاسع بين الجنسية والهوية، يحدث كثيرا أن يلتقيا، كأن يكون البحريني الهوية حاملا الجنسية البحرينية، ولكن يحدث أيضا أن يكون مغربي الهوية يحمل الجنسية الفرنسية، أو لبناني الهوية ذا جنسية أميركية، وفي كل هذه الحالات، تبقى الهوية واضحة وقائمة ولها تأثير الثبات والقوة والتجذر، بل و"القتل" في أحيان كثيرة - كما يقول معلوف - اعتمادا على تاريخ الحروب على الهويات، والقتل على الهويات أيضا.
غالبا ما ندعي - هنا في البحرين - أننا مجتمع يتألف من فسيفساء متعددة الألوان، بتعدد الأعراق والأصول والمذاهب والقبليات، ومن المتوقع أن يكون مجتمع كهذا - لا تفصله الجغرافيا كما يحدث في دول أكبر - متمتعا بقدر أكبر من التفهم والقدرة على صوغ يومياته وفق منظور التعايش السلمي والمنفتح والمتقبل للتعددية بكل أشكالها، ولكن لو نظرنا إلى الأمر من الناحية الواقعية، من ناحية كم نحن نعامل هوياتنا الخاصة بنوع من القداسة، ونرفض أن يتعامل الآخرون مع هوياتهم على المحك نفسه، كم نشعر أنه من حقنا أن نعبر عن هوياتنا بحرية وبتواقح أحيانا في المبالغة في تقديسها على حساب الهوية الجامعة، وكم تضيق صدورنا بتعبير الآخرين عن هوياتهم الخاصة حتى في مجالاتها الصغرى، في انتماءاتها الثقافية والجهوية والأيدولوجية والإثنية والقبلية والمذهبية والدينية وغيرها من مكونات الهوية، لو دققنا في الأمر لانكشفت أمامنا مساحة من عدم التسامح تنعكس في حدودها الدنيا على ألقاب سيئة - تصل إلى البذاءة أحيانا - يتبادلها الناس في شأن "الآخر"، وتنعكس في حدود أخرى على نيل الحقوق الأساسية للمواطن.
بالعودة إلى ما حدث من قلة شبابية منفلتة من مشجعي نادي المنامة، التي رفعت علم إيران في مباراة من ضمن مباريات الدوري، فإن هذه الفئة - والتي بدت في الصورة لمجموعة من المراهقين - يقينا ما كانت تريد إلا الوصول إلى النتيجة التي يصبو إليها كثيرون ممن هم في سنهم، وهي: شد الانتباه ولفت الأنظار، وذلك بالمغايرة، وإحداث الصدمة لمن يرى هذه الإشارة، وربما لو تم رفع العلم المكسيكي - مثلا - لأخذ الأمر وكأنه مزحة، ولو رفع العلم الإماراتي أو السعودي، لقرأ الأمر على أنه تجسيد الوحدة الخليجية وأن لا فرق بين أبناء هذا البلد أو ذاك، ولكن لحساسيات متعددة معلومة ومفهومة من قبل المجتمع لوضعية النادي ورمزية علم هذه الدولة تحديدا، كان رد فعل النادي صاخبا بعض الشيء، مبالغا في نفي الأمر وتعقب مراهقي المدرجات أولئك.
المتعارف عليه عالميا - ربما - هو أن الجيلين الأولين من المهاجرين يظلون مرتبطين قلبيا ببلدهم الأم، الجيل الأول لأنه عاش هناك وربما هاجر مرغما، والجيل الثاني لأنه ورث هذا الحنين الطازج من سابقه، ومن بعد ذلك تبدأ هذه العملية في التفكك والتراخي جيلا بعد آخر، حتى يذوب الناس في بعضهم، ولا أحد يعود يعلم من أمر بلد أجداده الأم شيئا، بل ويصبح الحنين بالعودة ضربا من الخيال والمبالغة الرومانسية.
هذا الأمر يعرفه كل من يزور الجمعيات العربية في الولايات المتحدة، أو يطوف ببعض الأحياء العربية في فرنسا، ليرى الفوارق جلية ما بين الأجيال التي لاتزال تتمسك بأهداب الوطن الأم، وما لحقها من أجيال أخرى من الصغار الذين لا يكادون ينطقون كليمات قليلة من العربية، بل الكثير من هذه الأجيال الجديدة تتحين الفرصة لتنفك من أسر طوق الهوية الذي ألزم آباؤهم أنفسهم به، ويريدون أن يلبسوه قسرا لأبنائهم الذين شكلوا هوياتهم الخاصة بالاندماج في مجتمعاتهم الجديدة، متآلفين مع أنفسهم ومع واقعهم، ومع ذلك، فإن الدول القائمة على الهجرات المتلاحقة، لاتزال تفتخر بأنها أمم متنوعة الأعراق والثقافات، وأنها تنظر باعتزاز إلى أن مجتمعها يتألف من خليط ثقافي وعرقي، له دوائره الخاصة التي تمنحه الاستمرار في تداول لغته الخاصة، وطبائعه واحتفالاته وأعياده، بما لا يؤثر على وحدة الأمة في حدها الأدنى، كأن تنادي قومية ما بالاستقلال بمنطقتها، أو تأليف نظام داخلي خاص بها لا علاقة له بالنظام العام، وهنا تتجلى الأحياء والمدن التي تحمل أسماء البلدان أو الأعراق التي أتت منها، وتكون بمثابة معلم من معالم المدن الكبرى في تلك الدول، كالحي الصيني الموجود في أكثر من دولة، وفي أكثر من منطقة في الدولة نفسها.
وفي المقابل، فإن الحال لدينا يشوبها التشوش، ففي الوقت الذي يطالب فيه المجتمع عموما من المتجنس أن يكون بحرينيا خالصا، لسانا وعادات وملبسا ومأكلا وفي موتيفات الحياة العامة في أصغر تفاصيلها، وإلا ستكون من الخسارة منح الجنسية لمن لا يقوم بأمرها خير قيام؛ في الوقت نفسه، فإن صفة "المتجنس" "بمعناها اللاواعي الدوني التفسير، المرتبط لا شعوريا بالوصولية والتملق واغتصاب حقوق الآخر" تطارده لجيلين على الأقل ريثما يتخلص من غبار وبقية جذور البلد الأم، فلا يسمح له بأن يعبر عن هوياته الخاصة لأن ذلك من غير اللائق بمن "تشرف" بحمل جنسية هذا البلد.
تظل المواقف السياسية المتورمة محليا بشأن التجنيس ما إذا كان قد جرى على أسس قانونية، أو من وراء حجاب، تقود النظرة من حامل الجنسية البحرينية، ليوضع على المفرزة، ويمكن لمن أراد أن يستعيد الكثير من التعبيرات اللفظية أو شكل الوجوه عند الحديث عن المتجنسين لتفضح الكثير من معاني تعاطينا مع الآخر.
|
الوسط - غسان الشهابي
عندما لعب منتخب البحرين لكرة القدم مع نظيره اليمني في "خليجي 16"، وكان منتخبنا حينذاك في كامل عافيته، فدك المرمى اليمني بالأربعة، كنت أتصل بصديق بحريني من أصل يمني طالبا منه خدمة، فسألته ضاحكا: "من تشجع؟"، فقال: "وهل هذا يحتاج إلى سؤال؟"، فحولت نبرة الضحك إلى شيء من الجد وأعدت عليه السؤال: "من تشجع؟"، فقال من دون تلجلج: "طبعا المنتخب اليمني.
..".لم تصدمني هذه الإجابة ولم أتوقف عندها طويلا، الأمر يبدو طبيعيا على أكثر من صعيد، فلو قيس الأمر على البحرينيين الذين حصلوا
حديثا على الجنسية القطرية أو الإماراتية، أو البريطانية حتى، وأقيمت مباراة بين منتخب وطنهم المستجد الذي يحملون أوراقه، ومنتخب وطنهم الأصيل الذي لم يفتحوا أعينهم إلا عليه، وعلى علمه الذي تسبح دمعة لا إرادية في موج العين كلما رفرف خفاقا مع أنه لا يعدو قماشا، فإلى أين سينتصر القلب؟ إلى الأوراق الثبوتية، أم إلى الهوية الراسخة التي لا تمحى ولو تطاول الزمن؟
تبدو المسألة واضحة بالنسبة إلى الكثير من الحالات من البحرينيين "ويقينا غيرهم" من الذين تركوا بلادهم أملا في عيش أفضل وأكثر كرامة واعتزازا وإطلاقا لقدراتهم، فذهبوا إلى بلاد أخرى، تقرب أو تبعد من وطنهم، ولدواعي العيش الكريم هناك، طوحوا بأوراقهم الثبوتية البحرينية واختاروا أوراق تلك الدول، اختاروها ليجد أبناؤهم مقاعد في مدارس تلك الدول. اختاروها لا كرها أو حقدا على بلادهم الأم، ولكن لأنهم يريدون الحصول على وظيفة وخدمات وتأمين صحي وسكن كما هم مواطنو تلك الدول، وربما اختاروها كي يغيظوا من يريد منعهم من العودة إلى وطنهم في وقت مضى كان فيه المبعدون البحرينيون - الذين لايزالون يتمسكون بأوراقهم الثبوتية الأصلية - يكفيهم أن يصلوا إلى مطار البحرين لتكتحل أعينهم بنخيل سماهيج وببحر قلالي وبـ "حظور" الحد، وببعض أطراف المحرق وجزء يسير من المنامة، ليتم إرجاعهم بعد ساعات إلى حيث أتوا.
المسألة تبدو سهلة لأننا نرى كم هم مهمومون أولئك البحرينيو الهوى، المتعددو الجنسيات، وهم في غرباتهم لا يمكنهم إلا أن ينشدوا إلى الهم المحلي، ويكتبوا فيه، ويزعقوا، ويفلسفوا، ويتهموا، ويوطنوا ويخونوا، وربما جانبوا الصواب كما يجانبه أهلوهم في الداخل، ولكنهم أبدا في مكانهم من قلب بلادهم، أو بلادهم في مكانها من قلوبهم، ولم يتهمهم أحد في تلك الدول - التي انتموا إليها بالأوراق - أنهم ينحازون ويميلون إلى دولهم الأصلية بما يعد خيانة للبلد الذي احتضنهم ومنحهم جواز سفره.
فعندما يقول أمين معلوف في كتابه "الهويات القاتلة": "تتألف هوية كل إنسان من جملة عناصر لا تقتصر على تلك الواردة في السجلات الرسمية"، فإنه يضع الأمر في نصابه، فهناك بون شاسع بين الجنسية والهوية، يحدث كثيرا أن يلتقيا، كأن يكون البحريني الهوية حاملا الجنسية البحرينية، ولكن يحدث أيضا أن يكون مغربي الهوية يحمل الجنسية الفرنسية، أو لبناني الهوية ذا جنسية أميركية، وفي كل هذه الحالات، تبقى الهوية واضحة وقائمة ولها تأثير الثبات والقوة والتجذر، بل و"القتل" في أحيان كثيرة - كما يقول معلوف - اعتمادا على تاريخ الحروب على الهويات، والقتل على الهويات أيضا.
غالبا ما ندعي - هنا في البحرين - أننا مجتمع يتألف من فسيفساء متعددة الألوان، بتعدد الأعراق والأصول والمذاهب والقبليات، ومن المتوقع أن يكون مجتمع كهذا - لا تفصله الجغرافيا كما يحدث في دول أكبر - متمتعا بقدر أكبر من التفهم والقدرة على صوغ يومياته وفق منظور التعايش السلمي والمنفتح والمتقبل للتعددية بكل أشكالها، ولكن لو نظرنا إلى الأمر من الناحية الواقعية، من ناحية كم نحن نعامل هوياتنا الخاصة بنوع من القداسة، ونرفض أن يتعامل الآخرون مع هوياتهم على المحك نفسه، كم نشعر أنه من حقنا أن نعبر عن هوياتنا بحرية وبتواقح أحيانا في المبالغة في تقديسها على حساب الهوية الجامعة، وكم تضيق صدورنا بتعبير الآخرين عن هوياتهم الخاصة حتى في مجالاتها الصغرى، في انتماءاتها الثقافية والجهوية والأيدولوجية والإثنية والقبلية والمذهبية والدينية وغيرها من مكونات الهوية، لو دققنا في الأمر لانكشفت أمامنا مساحة من عدم التسامح تنعكس في حدودها الدنيا على ألقاب سيئة - تصل إلى البذاءة أحيانا - يتبادلها الناس في شأن "الآخر"، وتنعكس في حدود أخرى على نيل الحقوق الأساسية للمواطن.
بالعودة إلى ما حدث من قلة شبابية منفلتة من مشجعي نادي المنامة، التي رفعت علم إيران في مباراة من ضمن مباريات الدوري، فإن هذه الفئة - والتي بدت في الصورة لمجموعة من المراهقين - يقينا ما كانت تريد إلا الوصول إلى النتيجة التي يصبو إليها كثيرون ممن هم في سنهم، وهي: شد الانتباه ولفت الأنظار، وذلك بالمغايرة، وإحداث الصدمة لمن يرى هذه الإشارة، وربما لو تم رفع العلم المكسيكي - مثلا - لأخذ الأمر وكأنه مزحة، ولو رفع العلم الإماراتي أو السعودي، لقرأ الأمر على أنه تجسيد الوحدة الخليجية وأن لا فرق بين أبناء هذا البلد أو ذاك، ولكن لحساسيات متعددة معلومة ومفهومة من قبل المجتمع لوضعية النادي ورمزية علم هذه الدولة تحديدا، كان رد فعل النادي صاخبا بعض الشيء، مبالغا في نفي الأمر وتعقب مراهقي المدرجات أولئك.
المتعارف عليه عالميا - ربما - هو أن الجيلين الأولين من المهاجرين يظلون مرتبطين قلبيا ببلدهم الأم، الجيل الأول لأنه عاش هناك وربما هاجر مرغما، والجيل الثاني لأنه ورث هذا الحنين الطازج من سابقه، ومن بعد ذلك تبدأ هذه العملية في التفكك والتراخي جيلا بعد آخر، حتى يذوب الناس في بعضهم، ولا أحد يعود يعلم من أمر بلد أجداده الأم شيئا، بل ويصبح الحنين بالعودة ضربا من الخيال والمبالغة الرومانسية.
هذا الأمر يعرفه كل من يزور الجمعيات العربية في الولايات المتحدة، أو يطوف ببعض الأحياء العربية في فرنسا، ليرى الفوارق جلية ما بين الأجيال التي لاتزال تتمسك بأهداب الوطن الأم، وما لحقها من أجيال أخرى من الصغار الذين لا يكادون ينطقون كليمات قليلة من العربية، بل الكثير من هذه الأجيال الجديدة تتحين الفرصة لتنفك من أسر طوق الهوية الذي ألزم آباؤهم أنفسهم به، ويريدون أن يلبسوه قسرا لأبنائهم الذين شكلوا هوياتهم الخاصة بالاندماج في مجتمعاتهم الجديدة، متآلفين مع أنفسهم ومع واقعهم، ومع ذلك، فإن الدول القائمة على الهجرات المتلاحقة، لاتزال تفتخر بأنها أمم متنوعة الأعراق والثقافات، وأنها تنظر باعتزاز إلى أن مجتمعها يتألف من خليط ثقافي وعرقي، له دوائره الخاصة التي تمنحه الاستمرار في تداول لغته الخاصة، وطبائعه واحتفالاته وأعياده، بما لا يؤثر على وحدة الأمة في حدها الأدنى، كأن تنادي قومية ما بالاستقلال بمنطقتها، أو تأليف نظام داخلي خاص بها لا علاقة له بالنظام العام، وهنا تتجلى الأحياء والمدن التي تحمل أسماء البلدان أو الأعراق التي أتت منها، وتكون بمثابة معلم من معالم المدن الكبرى في تلك الدول، كالحي الصيني الموجود في أكثر من دولة، وفي أكثر من منطقة في الدولة نفسها.
وفي المقابل، فإن الحال لدينا يشوبها التشوش، ففي الوقت الذي يطالب فيه المجتمع عموما من المتجنس أن يكون بحرينيا خالصا، لسانا وعادات وملبسا ومأكلا وفي موتيفات الحياة العامة في أصغر تفاصيلها، وإلا ستكون من الخسارة منح الجنسية لمن لا يقوم بأمرها خير قيام؛ في الوقت نفسه، فإن صفة "المتجنس" "بمعناها اللاواعي الدوني التفسير، المرتبط لا شعوريا بالوصولية والتملق واغتصاب حقوق الآخر" تطارده لجيلين على الأقل ريثما يتخلص من غبار وبقية جذور البلد الأم، فلا يسمح له بأن يعبر عن هوياته الخاصة لأن ذلك من غير اللائق بمن "تشرف" بحمل جنسية هذا البلد.
تظل المواقف السياسية المتورمة محليا بشأن التجنيس ما إذا كان قد جرى على أسس قانونية، أو من وراء حجاب، تقود النظرة من حامل الجنسية البحرينية، ليوضع على المفرزة، ويمكن لمن أراد أن يستعيد الكثير من التعبيرات اللفظية أو شكل الوجوه عند الحديث عن المتجنسين لتفضح الكثير من معاني تعاطينا مع الآخر.
¶
1:42 PM
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Elections
Today, the most important elections to be ever held in the Middle East will begin. It will not only be a stepping stone in the shaping of one country, but will set the blueprint for how the rest of the middle East will develop. Let's hope the elections go through without any major brutal incidents.
How will the elections go? That seems touch and go, as there is a chance that the unprecedented security will be able to successfully halt insurgents, or that the insurgents will succeed in mounting a coordinated attack throughout the country. How about the more important issue, that of the future of Iraq? How will things develop after today? How will the country shape up? That, I don't think anyone can predict with much confidence.
|
How will the elections go? That seems touch and go, as there is a chance that the unprecedented security will be able to successfully halt insurgents, or that the insurgents will succeed in mounting a coordinated attack throughout the country. How about the more important issue, that of the future of Iraq? How will things develop after today? How will the country shape up? That, I don't think anyone can predict with much confidence.
¶
1:29 AM
Friday, January 28, 2005
نداء
I accidentally came across this poem. Although the poetic qualities are mediocre, it is very interesting and controversial, some would even say blasphemous.
نداء
مولاي هذا نداءي الأخير
اهديني من وضعي المرير
قد اضحيت بك مشككا
حتى امسيت على التشهير
غزاةعلى مر الدهر حاولوا تشويهك
و لكن عزمك ليس باليسير
أما اليوم فمهولة كبرى
قد أزمت وضعنا الخطير
أناس ملكت منبرك لها بيتا
تفتي من عليه بالعسير
تحريما و رجما و سفكا
حتى حثوا على التكفير
يا سيدي خصمك ليس بالاعجمي
بل آت من صلة الرحم جرير
قد اختطف امتك رهينة
و لحقده الخلق اسير
يجهر في ما لا علم له
و يجرأ من قولك ان يستعير
حتى بلغ الشك رعيتك
في قولك المنير
يا مولاي قد عسكر في الليل فوج
يندفع كالشلال هدير
يحذر ان امرك مشبوه
و اللغو في قولك كثير
يعدنا بالخلاص من طغيانك
و يبشرنا بالنور و التحرير
يغرينا بالمال و الغنى
و العلم و العدل و التطوير
يلهينا بالفن و الطرب
و الخمر و ملذات السرير
و ان رفضنا او قاومنا
فالسيف ملب لحكم الأمير
لا تلمني ان نعر الشك في قلبي
فانت من وهبني نعمة التفكير
و اذا تلذذت في حرمة برئني
فانت خالق كل ما يثير
هل نستجيب؟
فالمسلول رهيب
و الخمر للهموم طبيب
و منبرك قد غزته العناكب
جعلته مصدرا للمتاعب
حتى فر الجمع من المذاهب
و صار الشعب من الجرح ناحب
يا مولاي عبدك ضرير
لهدفك لم يعد بصير
وراء سيفهم سنسير
و ان كان هذا لا يرضيك
فجاوب ندائي الأخير
what do you guys think?
|
نداء
مولاي هذا نداءي الأخير
اهديني من وضعي المرير
قد اضحيت بك مشككا
حتى امسيت على التشهير
غزاةعلى مر الدهر حاولوا تشويهك
و لكن عزمك ليس باليسير
أما اليوم فمهولة كبرى
قد أزمت وضعنا الخطير
أناس ملكت منبرك لها بيتا
تفتي من عليه بالعسير
تحريما و رجما و سفكا
حتى حثوا على التكفير
يا سيدي خصمك ليس بالاعجمي
بل آت من صلة الرحم جرير
قد اختطف امتك رهينة
و لحقده الخلق اسير
يجهر في ما لا علم له
و يجرأ من قولك ان يستعير
حتى بلغ الشك رعيتك
في قولك المنير
يا مولاي قد عسكر في الليل فوج
يندفع كالشلال هدير
يحذر ان امرك مشبوه
و اللغو في قولك كثير
يعدنا بالخلاص من طغيانك
و يبشرنا بالنور و التحرير
يغرينا بالمال و الغنى
و العلم و العدل و التطوير
يلهينا بالفن و الطرب
و الخمر و ملذات السرير
و ان رفضنا او قاومنا
فالسيف ملب لحكم الأمير
لا تلمني ان نعر الشك في قلبي
فانت من وهبني نعمة التفكير
و اذا تلذذت في حرمة برئني
فانت خالق كل ما يثير
هل نستجيب؟
فالمسلول رهيب
و الخمر للهموم طبيب
و منبرك قد غزته العناكب
جعلته مصدرا للمتاعب
حتى فر الجمع من المذاهب
و صار الشعب من الجرح ناحب
يا مولاي عبدك ضرير
لهدفك لم يعد بصير
وراء سيفهم سنسير
و ان كان هذا لا يرضيك
فجاوب ندائي الأخير
what do you guys think?
¶
9:54 AM
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Smoking
My College's graduate community has just decided to ban smoking on its premises.
Some American company, Weyco, has fired three of its employees just for being smokers.
Fascists.
Next it's no drinking, eating, talking, or breathing. WOOHOOO.. LET'S PAAARTTTYYYYYY.
Non-smokers, here is some news for .
|
Some American company, Weyco, has fired three of its employees just for being smokers.
Fascists.
Next it's no drinking, eating, talking, or breathing. WOOHOOO.. LET'S PAAARTTTYYYYYY.
Non-smokers, here is some news for .
¶
6:32 PM
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Dilemma
A reliable source tells me that the recent oil and gas excavations that went on in bahrain have yielded: zero, zilch, nada, sefr.
Now that's not something new, as we have had many unsuccessful excavations before. The new twist however is that the government, apparently, has reached the stage of concluding that it is not even worth spending any more money on excavations. i.e. What proven reserves we have right now are the only one's we'll have until they run out. NO MORE OIL!
Now this leaves us a problem of how to fund our future. Do we:
1. Adopt a culture of hard work and thorough education, dragging ourselves through a painful period of political and economic adjustment over the next couple of decades.
2. While it's still possible and before they build a massive army with their new wealth, invade our neighbours QATAR and take over their gasfields. That should sort us out for the next fifty years, hopefully by which I'll either be long gone or senile enough not to care.
1. or 2. ???
|
Now that's not something new, as we have had many unsuccessful excavations before. The new twist however is that the government, apparently, has reached the stage of concluding that it is not even worth spending any more money on excavations. i.e. What proven reserves we have right now are the only one's we'll have until they run out. NO MORE OIL!
Now this leaves us a problem of how to fund our future. Do we:
1. Adopt a culture of hard work and thorough education, dragging ourselves through a painful period of political and economic adjustment over the next couple of decades.
2. While it's still possible and before they build a massive army with their new wealth, invade our neighbours QATAR and take over their gasfields. That should sort us out for the next fifty years, hopefully by which I'll either be long gone or senile enough not to care.
1. or 2. ???
¶
5:39 AM
Friday, January 21, 2005
|
GCC and the Prisoner's Dilemma
We all know the story about how we pissed off that big brother of ours, just to keep a stronger, more glitzy, more enticing friend happy. Now brothers get into fights, particularly one when brother perceives the other to have sold out just for money. It is even more painful, when the big brother realizes his younger one might overtake him in terms of prestige and opportunities. So Bahrain decided to sign a Free Trade Agreement with the US. Saudi Arabia sulked, considering this a breach of GCC agreements, and warned that it might impose tariffs on Bahraini goods. Bahrain retorts back that it is not a breach, and that other countries such as Qatar are getting ready to sign anyway.
Is this good or bad? I say it's bad, very bad. Who's right or wrong? Well, I say both are wrong (ever the non-cynic I am).
Why is it bad? Well it's bad on two fronts: Bad for Bahrain, but more importantly, it's even worse for the GCC as a whole.
First, to our dear homeland Bahrain. So far we have only heard the constant positive spin about how great this agreement will be for Bahraini trade and consumers. Our trade with the United States will boom. Our industries will benefit from lower taxes the U.S. will impose on them, which in turn will increase our demand and sales. Similarly, goods from the United States will flow the other way, and with no taxes on them this will be reflected in lower prices for consumers in Bahrain. Also, we will get in the good books of the mightiest (and only) military and economic superpower in the world. Look how lucky we are to be one of the few chosen ones so far to be included in this world trade agreement. Right? WRONG.
Let's decompose these arguments one by one. First, to our goods having lower prices in the United States, thus demand being increased. I don't think anyone can really argue against that one, but one has to think about how much we are going to benefit from this. i.e. How much goods do we export to the states that would benefit from these taxes? Well, not that much. Let's admit it, we are no manufacturing economy. We do not have that many locally produced products that are going to benefit from these tax breaks. The example that people keep bringing on and on again is our clothes industry. Aha. And how much exactly does that count for our GDP? How many productive Bahrainis (and those that are employed just to fill the Bahranization quota but are completely unproductive do not count) are employed in this sector? Not that many.
How about our other sectors? The oil industry? You bet your tight wallet that the U.S. is not going to reduce its 100%+ tax on fuel any time soon, especially just for the sake of a globally economically insignificant country like Bahrain. Aluminium maybe? Well, I have another rant coming on about the disgraceful inefficiency and corruption that resides in Alba, but let's leave that aside for the moment. Other than that, Aluminium is not a commodity whose demand fluctuates all over the place, so that tiny tax reduction is not going to affect our demand that much. Our sales will probably stay the same.
Also, we have to take into account that the U.S. accounts for only 3.5% of our exports (2003). Let us be very generous and say our exports with the United States will grow by 10, in fact 20%. Our overall increase in exports will be 0.035 multiplied by 0.2. I'll let you do the Maths. Anyhow, the benefits to our exports from the world trade agreement are going to be most probably (minutely) positive, so it's not the main problem.
How about us lifting taxes and tariffs from American goods? Isn't that going to lower our prices significantly, reflecting well on the consumers? First let us point out that, unlike our exports, the United States constitutes a big share of our imports (11.4% to be exact, the second largest import partner). To answer the above question: Yes, theoretically the deal would lead to lower prices. However, one has to ask by how much? Bahrain's taxes on imports are set at a whopping and ridiculously high 5% (as are all other gulf countries). Thank god that 5% price ceiling will be lowered.
Again, to the thick headed, I am being sarcastic here. If you really want to lower prices, I have a more effective and closer to home, sure-winning advice: break up those goddamn monopolies we have at home. Go to those five big hamours (fish) on the island who own every single goddamn agency for every single product on the island, and tell them, "oi, that's wrong." It is pretty ridiculous for a handful of people to own everything on the Island, to reap 30% or higher profit margins in a supposedly free market, making billions of dollars of profit on a country as small as ours. You want to lower prices? Set up a proper anti-monopoly agency to monitor how fat these guys' wallets are. There's one useful thing we can learn from the U.S.
Added to this, I'm also a bit worried about the revenue the state is losing out. Remember, the U.S. is our second largest import-partner, and we are going to lose out on the already small sum of 5% the government makes on these imports.
The first moment I sensed trouble with this deal is when I witnessed the delegations each countries sent to the negotiations. The United States had plane-loads of lawyers, economists, politicians, analysts, economic lawyers and technicians to monitor every single paragraph, sentence, and word of the agreement. The Bahraini delegation comprised of a grand total of four (including the minister), where three of those sent considered it a prestigious holiday trip, and one person was working his socks off to look at all parts of the agreement. Who do you think got the better deal?
How about that special relation we are going to foster with the United States? How about us being able to have an edge over other GCC countries, and being able to export cheap American goods to other GCC countries? Well, keeping the issue of Saudi tariffs on us aside, this takes me to the next part of this blog: the effect on the whole GCC.
The one aspect that seems in this euphoria to have zoomed over everyone's head is that WE ARE NOT ALONE. We are not somehow special in getting this agreement. We might be one of the firsts, but we definitely won't be one of the lasts. Jordan has already signed an agreement with the U.S., and there are countless other countries in the process of doing so too. As the proponents of this agreement always point out, Qatar is also in the process of signing one. What happens then? Where does our advantage over GCC countries go to?
At the danger of sounding like a hippie leftie anti-globalist, I am going to put forward two political-economic reasons for the U.S.'s sudden eagerness to sign free trade agreements all over the world. The first is pretty obvious and not that controversial. It is a way for the U.S. to bypass all the hassle of the World Trade Organization. Every time the U.S. (and EU for that matter) try to propose some new rules for the WTO, a handful of developing countries (such as Brazil, India, South Africa) stick their noses up and protest that the developed countries are not offering enough for the developing countries in exchange (particularly on agricultural issues). Hence, there is a deadlock, and no agreement is reached. Well, the U.S. and (the E.U. is playing this game as well) has decided to call their bluff and engage in bilateral trade agreements (in simple words: sod negotiating with the whole world, we’ll just negotiate wich each country on its own). Hence, these negotiations are mushrooming all over the world.
The other is more Arabic countries specific. Why do you think the U.S. picked Morocco, Jordan, and Bahrain as the first countries to sign world trade agreements with? Is it because of our vibrant and world influencing economies? Hmmm..... More probably it is part of the U.S. greater push for Democracy and Free Trade in the Middle East (which they make no effort to hide). Bahrain is probably a smaller fish to fry just to get squeeze on the bigger fish, Saudi Arabia and the gulf as a whole. Whether this push is a good or bad thing, I’ll leave it for the reader to decide. One could also conceivably argue that this is part of a more idealistic and philanthropy oriented push by the U.S. to make the world more market competitive. I have my doubts about that one, especially since you would think the U.S. would extend it's friendship hand first to bigger economic powers, such as the EU, in such a scenario.
Still with me? Good, because we are only halfway through with the story. Before I go on, there is a key point I have to point out:
THE US HAS INSISTED THAT IT WILL ONLY CONDUCT NEGOTIATIONS WITH EACH COUNTRY SEPARATELY, AND NOT IN A WIDER CONTEXT, SUCH AS BARGAINING WITH THE WHOLE GCC.
Now that that's said, here's my analysis at the game the U.S. is playing in the Gulf:
What is happening at the moment is what economists and game theorists term "the prisoner's dilemma." Don't worry, this is not very technical, and actually could be quite fun to learn. This is how the story goes:
Two prisoners have been arrested on the charge of robbing a place. Each prisoner is being interrogated on his own. The officer tries to lure each prisoner into confessing about the other prisoner. If prisoner A confesses about the crime, then he is let go and prisoner B gets nine months in jail (and vice versa). If they both confess about the crime, then they each get five months in jail. If both of them hold out, then the police have minimal evidence, and can only put them away for three month.
Which do you think the prisoner's would go for? Obviously it's denying the crimes and going away with three months? Think again. Look at the above diagram.
Let us analyze what is the best thing, or what is the best strategy for each player to do. It can be noticed that no matter what player A does, it's best for player B to confess (and vice versa). If player A confesses, then player B might as well confess and get off with -5 months instead of -9. If player A denies the crime, then it's better off for player B to confess and get off with no time. The same applies to player A's thinking. Hence, what ends up happening is both confess and both end up with 5 months in jail.
As we said before, this is not the optimum solution. The optimum solution would be fore each to deny, as each only get 3 months but unfortunately this result is not achieved.
This is exactly what's happening with these world trade agreements. As noted before, the United States has laid it down as a precondition that it will only talk to each country on its own. Hence, each country is approached and is enticed by the goodies of signing the agreement (confessing). Each country has an overwhelming motive to join (confess) thinking it is outplaying the other countries and that this is the optimum result. What they don't realize is that if they stuck together (both deny), and acted as one whole GCC they probably would get a better deal.
Why? Because on our own Bahrain on a global scale, let's be honest, is quite insignificant. Hence, its bargaining power is minimal as well. The same applies to all the GCC countries, maybe with the exception of Saudi Arabia. As a whole, the GCC, although not quite so powerful, at least will have enough say to weave out something for its own benefit from the deal; it will at least have some bargaining power. By being able to chip at one country at a time, the United States is able to destroy this bargaining power, and ultimately put its final goal, Saudi Arabia, in a vulnerable position.
Ultimately, however, there is no one to blame more than the Saudis. Leaving aside the issue that this deal has been negotiated for a few years, and they didn't decide to speak until now, the main reason the GCC is so weak is because of Saudi Arabia itself. It has been the main stumbling block for us to integrate our tariffs, currencies, economies, and even some sort of political federation. In a continent as diverse as Europe, with many languages, currencies, cultures, as we all as the conflicting wars, the European Union was achieved. In an area as the GCC, where they have basically the same currency (effectively the U.S. dollar), the same language, similar culture, similar governing system, and even similar dialect, all that has been achieved is flag waving and fighting over borders and small islands. No wonder the U.S. is able to slowly chip away at us and cause conflict between countries that in theory should be united.
If the GCC has utilized the past 25 years effectively and has been able to establish a single currency and single economic area, then the U.S. would have found it much harder to play the game it is playing right now. Look how now the EU always bargains and negotiates as a single market. The actual steps that would've been needed to achieve a GCC union would've been extremely simple compared to that of the European Union, but unfortunately we lacked the political capital. We will slowly see the effects of that over the coming years.
|
Is this good or bad? I say it's bad, very bad. Who's right or wrong? Well, I say both are wrong (ever the non-cynic I am).
Why is it bad? Well it's bad on two fronts: Bad for Bahrain, but more importantly, it's even worse for the GCC as a whole.
First, to our dear homeland Bahrain. So far we have only heard the constant positive spin about how great this agreement will be for Bahraini trade and consumers. Our trade with the United States will boom. Our industries will benefit from lower taxes the U.S. will impose on them, which in turn will increase our demand and sales. Similarly, goods from the United States will flow the other way, and with no taxes on them this will be reflected in lower prices for consumers in Bahrain. Also, we will get in the good books of the mightiest (and only) military and economic superpower in the world. Look how lucky we are to be one of the few chosen ones so far to be included in this world trade agreement. Right? WRONG.
Let's decompose these arguments one by one. First, to our goods having lower prices in the United States, thus demand being increased. I don't think anyone can really argue against that one, but one has to think about how much we are going to benefit from this. i.e. How much goods do we export to the states that would benefit from these taxes? Well, not that much. Let's admit it, we are no manufacturing economy. We do not have that many locally produced products that are going to benefit from these tax breaks. The example that people keep bringing on and on again is our clothes industry. Aha. And how much exactly does that count for our GDP? How many productive Bahrainis (and those that are employed just to fill the Bahranization quota but are completely unproductive do not count) are employed in this sector? Not that many.
How about our other sectors? The oil industry? You bet your tight wallet that the U.S. is not going to reduce its 100%+ tax on fuel any time soon, especially just for the sake of a globally economically insignificant country like Bahrain. Aluminium maybe? Well, I have another rant coming on about the disgraceful inefficiency and corruption that resides in Alba, but let's leave that aside for the moment. Other than that, Aluminium is not a commodity whose demand fluctuates all over the place, so that tiny tax reduction is not going to affect our demand that much. Our sales will probably stay the same.
Also, we have to take into account that the U.S. accounts for only 3.5% of our exports (2003). Let us be very generous and say our exports with the United States will grow by 10, in fact 20%. Our overall increase in exports will be 0.035 multiplied by 0.2. I'll let you do the Maths. Anyhow, the benefits to our exports from the world trade agreement are going to be most probably (minutely) positive, so it's not the main problem.
How about us lifting taxes and tariffs from American goods? Isn't that going to lower our prices significantly, reflecting well on the consumers? First let us point out that, unlike our exports, the United States constitutes a big share of our imports (11.4% to be exact, the second largest import partner). To answer the above question: Yes, theoretically the deal would lead to lower prices. However, one has to ask by how much? Bahrain's taxes on imports are set at a whopping and ridiculously high 5% (as are all other gulf countries). Thank god that 5% price ceiling will be lowered.
Again, to the thick headed, I am being sarcastic here. If you really want to lower prices, I have a more effective and closer to home, sure-winning advice: break up those goddamn monopolies we have at home. Go to those five big hamours (fish) on the island who own every single goddamn agency for every single product on the island, and tell them, "oi, that's wrong." It is pretty ridiculous for a handful of people to own everything on the Island, to reap 30% or higher profit margins in a supposedly free market, making billions of dollars of profit on a country as small as ours. You want to lower prices? Set up a proper anti-monopoly agency to monitor how fat these guys' wallets are. There's one useful thing we can learn from the U.S.
Added to this, I'm also a bit worried about the revenue the state is losing out. Remember, the U.S. is our second largest import-partner, and we are going to lose out on the already small sum of 5% the government makes on these imports.
The first moment I sensed trouble with this deal is when I witnessed the delegations each countries sent to the negotiations. The United States had plane-loads of lawyers, economists, politicians, analysts, economic lawyers and technicians to monitor every single paragraph, sentence, and word of the agreement. The Bahraini delegation comprised of a grand total of four (including the minister), where three of those sent considered it a prestigious holiday trip, and one person was working his socks off to look at all parts of the agreement. Who do you think got the better deal?
How about that special relation we are going to foster with the United States? How about us being able to have an edge over other GCC countries, and being able to export cheap American goods to other GCC countries? Well, keeping the issue of Saudi tariffs on us aside, this takes me to the next part of this blog: the effect on the whole GCC.
The one aspect that seems in this euphoria to have zoomed over everyone's head is that WE ARE NOT ALONE. We are not somehow special in getting this agreement. We might be one of the firsts, but we definitely won't be one of the lasts. Jordan has already signed an agreement with the U.S., and there are countless other countries in the process of doing so too. As the proponents of this agreement always point out, Qatar is also in the process of signing one. What happens then? Where does our advantage over GCC countries go to?
At the danger of sounding like a hippie leftie anti-globalist, I am going to put forward two political-economic reasons for the U.S.'s sudden eagerness to sign free trade agreements all over the world. The first is pretty obvious and not that controversial. It is a way for the U.S. to bypass all the hassle of the World Trade Organization. Every time the U.S. (and EU for that matter) try to propose some new rules for the WTO, a handful of developing countries (such as Brazil, India, South Africa) stick their noses up and protest that the developed countries are not offering enough for the developing countries in exchange (particularly on agricultural issues). Hence, there is a deadlock, and no agreement is reached. Well, the U.S. and (the E.U. is playing this game as well) has decided to call their bluff and engage in bilateral trade agreements (in simple words: sod negotiating with the whole world, we’ll just negotiate wich each country on its own). Hence, these negotiations are mushrooming all over the world.
The other is more Arabic countries specific. Why do you think the U.S. picked Morocco, Jordan, and Bahrain as the first countries to sign world trade agreements with? Is it because of our vibrant and world influencing economies? Hmmm..... More probably it is part of the U.S. greater push for Democracy and Free Trade in the Middle East (which they make no effort to hide). Bahrain is probably a smaller fish to fry just to get squeeze on the bigger fish, Saudi Arabia and the gulf as a whole. Whether this push is a good or bad thing, I’ll leave it for the reader to decide. One could also conceivably argue that this is part of a more idealistic and philanthropy oriented push by the U.S. to make the world more market competitive. I have my doubts about that one, especially since you would think the U.S. would extend it's friendship hand first to bigger economic powers, such as the EU, in such a scenario.
Still with me? Good, because we are only halfway through with the story. Before I go on, there is a key point I have to point out:
THE US HAS INSISTED THAT IT WILL ONLY CONDUCT NEGOTIATIONS WITH EACH COUNTRY SEPARATELY, AND NOT IN A WIDER CONTEXT, SUCH AS BARGAINING WITH THE WHOLE GCC.
Now that that's said, here's my analysis at the game the U.S. is playing in the Gulf:
What is happening at the moment is what economists and game theorists term "the prisoner's dilemma." Don't worry, this is not very technical, and actually could be quite fun to learn. This is how the story goes:
Two prisoners have been arrested on the charge of robbing a place. Each prisoner is being interrogated on his own. The officer tries to lure each prisoner into confessing about the other prisoner. If prisoner A confesses about the crime, then he is let go and prisoner B gets nine months in jail (and vice versa). If they both confess about the crime, then they each get five months in jail. If both of them hold out, then the police have minimal evidence, and can only put them away for three month.
Which do you think the prisoner's would go for? Obviously it's denying the crimes and going away with three months? Think again. Look at the above diagram.
Let us analyze what is the best thing, or what is the best strategy for each player to do. It can be noticed that no matter what player A does, it's best for player B to confess (and vice versa). If player A confesses, then player B might as well confess and get off with -5 months instead of -9. If player A denies the crime, then it's better off for player B to confess and get off with no time. The same applies to player A's thinking. Hence, what ends up happening is both confess and both end up with 5 months in jail.
As we said before, this is not the optimum solution. The optimum solution would be fore each to deny, as each only get 3 months but unfortunately this result is not achieved.
This is exactly what's happening with these world trade agreements. As noted before, the United States has laid it down as a precondition that it will only talk to each country on its own. Hence, each country is approached and is enticed by the goodies of signing the agreement (confessing). Each country has an overwhelming motive to join (confess) thinking it is outplaying the other countries and that this is the optimum result. What they don't realize is that if they stuck together (both deny), and acted as one whole GCC they probably would get a better deal.
Why? Because on our own Bahrain on a global scale, let's be honest, is quite insignificant. Hence, its bargaining power is minimal as well. The same applies to all the GCC countries, maybe with the exception of Saudi Arabia. As a whole, the GCC, although not quite so powerful, at least will have enough say to weave out something for its own benefit from the deal; it will at least have some bargaining power. By being able to chip at one country at a time, the United States is able to destroy this bargaining power, and ultimately put its final goal, Saudi Arabia, in a vulnerable position.
Ultimately, however, there is no one to blame more than the Saudis. Leaving aside the issue that this deal has been negotiated for a few years, and they didn't decide to speak until now, the main reason the GCC is so weak is because of Saudi Arabia itself. It has been the main stumbling block for us to integrate our tariffs, currencies, economies, and even some sort of political federation. In a continent as diverse as Europe, with many languages, currencies, cultures, as we all as the conflicting wars, the European Union was achieved. In an area as the GCC, where they have basically the same currency (effectively the U.S. dollar), the same language, similar culture, similar governing system, and even similar dialect, all that has been achieved is flag waving and fighting over borders and small islands. No wonder the U.S. is able to slowly chip away at us and cause conflict between countries that in theory should be united.
If the GCC has utilized the past 25 years effectively and has been able to establish a single currency and single economic area, then the U.S. would have found it much harder to play the game it is playing right now. Look how now the EU always bargains and negotiates as a single market. The actual steps that would've been needed to achieve a GCC union would've been extremely simple compared to that of the European Union, but unfortunately we lacked the political capital. We will slowly see the effects of that over the coming years.
¶
3:26 AM
عيدكم مبارك
الا يا رايح الديره
وصية وصلها عني
ابيك تقولهم مشتاق
و بلغهم سلام مني
حج مبرور و ذنب مغفور, و كل عام و أنتم بخير
|
وصية وصلها عني
ابيك تقولهم مشتاق
و بلغهم سلام مني
حج مبرور و ذنب مغفور, و كل عام و أنتم بخير
¶
1:35 AM
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Clouds are Gathering
|Alter Ego: Choices
I'm a good cook. Let me take that back. In fact, I'm a darn bloody good cook.
Stay with me here. Don't fade.
There comes a point in everyone's life where he has to make one of the most momentous decisions in his life: careers.
No, I'm not talking about what you want to do with the rest of your life, or what your life goal is. This is not the same as careers. The two are not usually mutually inclusive. My goal in life is to win the world cup while scoring ten goals, against Brazil in the final. What's the chance of that happening? What I want to do in life is have fun and keep on learning new things and ideas. That's not necessarily going to happen in a job.
I'm talking about a way to make money. If you're lucky, this might also be an enjoyalbe and fulfilling experience.
First, there is the option of staying a student for the rest of one's life. Unfortunately, there is only so much money you could drain out of your parents, and there are only so many scholarships that you can apply for. Student as a profession unfortunately does not pay either, and you do get tired of the lousy food and accomodation. Worst is when you suddenly realize one day that the study buddy you've been eyeing up all week is young enough to be your daughter.
Hence, you have to choose something else to do, as parents cannot support you infinitely. This is very easy, particularly when you consider the diverse and extremely fulfilling options you have in Bahrain, and the Gulf in general. First there is our booming and dynamic movie industry, which has churned out many an oscar winner. If not that we have our hard-hitting and intellectually stimulating TV industry. If words are more your thing, how about some of our award-grabbing newspapers, particularly the pulitzer-prize staffed english ones?
Maybe it is more fruitful to become an academic. After all, our research facilities are excellent, and the burden of beauracracy and student-hours teaching is minimal in our fine universities. Maybe in these world-envied establishments one could continue his quest for knowledge, contributing new ideas in widely taught and locally highly saught after subjects such as philosophy, history and the pure sciences. Hell, you might even be able to add a noble prize to their already bulging prize shelf.
If you are very thick then I should tell you I am being sarcastic. The newspapers we have would not even qualify as a university gazette over here. They're more likely to be used to eat food on, or worse, to wipe recently digest remains. I mean, how embarassing is it that half of our newspapers are written by news agencies 5,000 miles away from us, even when it is in Arabic. You look at the GDN or even Al Wasat and half the stories are ripoffs from reuters or France Press. A goddamn Frenchman writes better articles than we do, IN OUR OWN LANGUAGE!
Then we have the local stories section. If you want to spend a lifetime saying "the dude went here and there, said some amazing stuff, it was awesome, it moved me to tears. I am eternally enlightened by his wisdom. We now know why he is the smartest and wisest man ever to exist on the face of this earth," then a newspaper in Bahrain would be perfect. If you want to make more hard hitting stories, such as corruption in Alba or the government, or write about the living conditions of expats or prostitutes in Bahrain, outlining who are the big fish that sponsor them and put them in such conditions, then you'll probably end up without a job, or worse, in jail. Better stick to saying what Saint Christopher kindergarten did on their field day out.
So the reality dawns on you that if you want a half-decent job in Bahrain it will either be in banking, accounting, law, or something-related to computers.
Awesome.
I'll tell you who has the best job in the world, hands down: Keith Floyd. No? You don't know him? Well that's part of why he has the best job. What's his job exactly? He goes around the world, visiting most countries known to man, gets pissed, and cooks amazing food. He is also a published writer (his recipes) and a millionare. Plus, he is not the type of celebrity who gets chased down by the media the whole time. Who would refuse such a job? Drinking fine wine, travelling the globe, spending time with the local women, making good money, and cooking good food. You don't even need to lie to your partner about how good her cooking is anymore.
Now like I said before, I'm a good cook. In fact, I'm a darn bloody good cook. Do you think the good old ministry of disinformation would fund me to travel the globe and show Bahrain the culinary delights of the world, or will they stick to Afnan Al Zayani? Ahh, my mouth is already watering at the idea of sitting on the beach in Sicily, sipping my (non-alcoholic of course) drink, chatting about Dante with a fine Italian lady, and then prepare some fine gellatio and granita which we we feed to each other.
....
...
Well it's either that, or accounting.
|
Stay with me here. Don't fade.
There comes a point in everyone's life where he has to make one of the most momentous decisions in his life: careers.
No, I'm not talking about what you want to do with the rest of your life, or what your life goal is. This is not the same as careers. The two are not usually mutually inclusive. My goal in life is to win the world cup while scoring ten goals, against Brazil in the final. What's the chance of that happening? What I want to do in life is have fun and keep on learning new things and ideas. That's not necessarily going to happen in a job.
I'm talking about a way to make money. If you're lucky, this might also be an enjoyalbe and fulfilling experience.
First, there is the option of staying a student for the rest of one's life. Unfortunately, there is only so much money you could drain out of your parents, and there are only so many scholarships that you can apply for. Student as a profession unfortunately does not pay either, and you do get tired of the lousy food and accomodation. Worst is when you suddenly realize one day that the study buddy you've been eyeing up all week is young enough to be your daughter.
Hence, you have to choose something else to do, as parents cannot support you infinitely. This is very easy, particularly when you consider the diverse and extremely fulfilling options you have in Bahrain, and the Gulf in general. First there is our booming and dynamic movie industry, which has churned out many an oscar winner. If not that we have our hard-hitting and intellectually stimulating TV industry. If words are more your thing, how about some of our award-grabbing newspapers, particularly the pulitzer-prize staffed english ones?
Maybe it is more fruitful to become an academic. After all, our research facilities are excellent, and the burden of beauracracy and student-hours teaching is minimal in our fine universities. Maybe in these world-envied establishments one could continue his quest for knowledge, contributing new ideas in widely taught and locally highly saught after subjects such as philosophy, history and the pure sciences. Hell, you might even be able to add a noble prize to their already bulging prize shelf.
If you are very thick then I should tell you I am being sarcastic. The newspapers we have would not even qualify as a university gazette over here. They're more likely to be used to eat food on, or worse, to wipe recently digest remains. I mean, how embarassing is it that half of our newspapers are written by news agencies 5,000 miles away from us, even when it is in Arabic. You look at the GDN or even Al Wasat and half the stories are ripoffs from reuters or France Press. A goddamn Frenchman writes better articles than we do, IN OUR OWN LANGUAGE!
Then we have the local stories section. If you want to spend a lifetime saying "the dude went here and there, said some amazing stuff, it was awesome, it moved me to tears. I am eternally enlightened by his wisdom. We now know why he is the smartest and wisest man ever to exist on the face of this earth," then a newspaper in Bahrain would be perfect. If you want to make more hard hitting stories, such as corruption in Alba or the government, or write about the living conditions of expats or prostitutes in Bahrain, outlining who are the big fish that sponsor them and put them in such conditions, then you'll probably end up without a job, or worse, in jail. Better stick to saying what Saint Christopher kindergarten did on their field day out.
So the reality dawns on you that if you want a half-decent job in Bahrain it will either be in banking, accounting, law, or something-related to computers.
Awesome.
I'll tell you who has the best job in the world, hands down: Keith Floyd. No? You don't know him? Well that's part of why he has the best job. What's his job exactly? He goes around the world, visiting most countries known to man, gets pissed, and cooks amazing food. He is also a published writer (his recipes) and a millionare. Plus, he is not the type of celebrity who gets chased down by the media the whole time. Who would refuse such a job? Drinking fine wine, travelling the globe, spending time with the local women, making good money, and cooking good food. You don't even need to lie to your partner about how good her cooking is anymore.
Now like I said before, I'm a good cook. In fact, I'm a darn bloody good cook. Do you think the good old ministry of disinformation would fund me to travel the globe and show Bahrain the culinary delights of the world, or will they stick to Afnan Al Zayani? Ahh, my mouth is already watering at the idea of sitting on the beach in Sicily, sipping my (non-alcoholic of course) drink, chatting about Dante with a fine Italian lady, and then prepare some fine gellatio and granita which we we feed to each other.
....
...
Well it's either that, or accounting.
¶
1:01 AM
Monday, January 17, 2005
Identity 2 - Churchill's Hiccup
Who, are more appropriately, what are we? A lot of readers would reply that they are Bahraini. What does it exactly mean to be a Bahraini?
Maybe Bahrain is not the best example. Let's take the issue wider to the gulf. What is it be Qatari? What is it to be Emarati? How about Saudi?
How about if we take the whole middle East. What is a Jordanian? How is he different from a Syrian? How about an Iraqi? Is an Iraqi from Mosul the same as an Iraqi from Al Basra?
It is really striking how the absolute majority of Arabic and Middle Eastern countries are the results of artificial construction, within the last one hundred years, usually by the whim of a couple of people.
In Bahrain, we do not notice this directly because Bahrain is indeed a distinct place that has been so for thousands of years. After all, Bahrain is a collection of Islands, that has always had its own particular circumstances and politics. No matter if it was called Dilmun, Aradous, Awal, or Bahrain, you can always identify the place throughout history, simply because of its natural characteristics (being an archipeligo).
This does not apply to the rest of the Middle East. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, in fact most of the modern day countries were born out of the struggle of the Superpowers at the beginning of the 1900s, particularly the wheeling and deeling between France and the UK. This was geopolitics at its best.
It's 1918, after the first world war had ended. The stage was Paris, where the treaty of Versailles was being negotiated. The British's main concern was to protect their route to India, and to fend of the French. The French's main concern was to keep tabs with the British, and jointly the two were worried about those darn Russians. Then there was also the small snag of the local people calling for independence. Most of the negotiations were conducted by a handful of men on each side. The spoils of the war, particularly from the Ottoman Empire, had to be divided up, and the Middle East was the map on which one of the most important games of MONOPOLY was ever played. Little did these men know that there actions would shape the area in such an upredictable and important manner.
The examples of the results that emerged are all over. Look at Jordan, which is a completely artificially constructed country, where nothing resembling a statehood existed before. In fact, legend has it that the reason Jordan has it's odd shaped borders is because of Churchill's hiccup. Apparently Churchill, who was in the foreign office at the time, just had a big and fulfilling meal. While drawing the map of Jordan, he hiccuped, resulting in the border which survives until this day.
Then you have Lebanon, which was born out of the French's want of Influence in the Levant, and their excuse of needing to protect the Christian minority living around Mount Lebanon.
It is an old cliche that the present day problems of the Arabic world are results of decisions made by the former empires, particularly the British and the French. I definitely do not like blaming our problems on others, but the Empire's construction of borders definitely did not help in reducing our troubles.
Let's take Lebanon. Although the French's main worry was the area around Mount Lebanon, where most of the christian community lived, their greed for more influence resulted in them bargaining for the surrounding area as well. This resulted in a country that included christians, sunnis, as well as Shias.
Sectarianism was not the only problem, however. Included in the newly emerged lebanon were Areas that were traditionally seen as part of Greater Syria. Does anyone wonder why Syria still wants to have a hand meddling in Lebanon's internal affairs?
In an area where politics and culture is mainly defined by religion, sect, and cultural background, this was bound to become a recipe for trouble. We are witnessing the results of such conflicts up until this day.
The countries of the Arabian Gulf, although not directly the product of the above time period, also emerged in an extremely artificial manner. In fact, the name "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" arised from a Western idea, as it was George Rendell, the head of the Middle East Division in the Foreign Office of the United Kingdom who suggested the name in 1932 to Ibn Saud, as Dr. Mdhawi Al Rasheed tells us.
There is absolutely nothing unusual about countries being created and constructed. Throughout history countries have been defined and redefined, as one can witness throughout the history of Central and Eastern Europe.. What is striking, however, is how many countries in the Middle East, almost singularly (along with countries in Africa) have risen out of the simple strokes of a few men. They did not arise naturally out of the internal events of a country, but were formed by the whims of a few men over dinner.
One of the most striking features of modern day states is how they redefine and reshape its citizens own attitudes. The institutions in place, the concept of patriotism, even football matches, can shape people to believe into ideas and entities that did not exist before. If you speak with Jordanians they would also see themselves as Jordanian. Many lebanese would loathe you if you mentioned any connection whatsoever with Syria. Indeed, states, even though artificially created, have the power to create a reality out of an idea.
The modern creation of a state, however, can lead to problems that did not exist before. Take Bahrain for example. We have been dragged into a fictitious conflict with Qatar that is simply the consequence of two families settling old scores. Although Bahrain and Qatar are as close as you get to each other blood and mentality wise, as most Bahrainis have relatives in Qatar, we somehow have come to see them as our mortal enemies. Although large chunks of Lebanon and Syria were traditionally seen as part of the same entity, nowadays leads to a poltical wrangle.
This history of many countries in the Middle East does lead one to suspect: are these countries stable as states? Is Jorand going to remain the Jordan we know it today in a few generations? Is Saudi Arabia going to remain Saudi Arabia? Are small countries of about 200,000 nationals each, which is the main characteristic in the gulf, sustainable in the long run? No where else in the world is there such a concentration of relatively small artificially constructed countries.
Although "what if" is the work of the devil, this also leads one to wonder of how things could've been. What if Churchill did not decide to pig out that day and hiccup? What if Bahrain and Qatar decided to join the UAE in a country?
What does the future , particularly with another superpower meddling around, hold for this area?
What if any of us actually bothered to read up on the history of our area?
|
Maybe Bahrain is not the best example. Let's take the issue wider to the gulf. What is it be Qatari? What is it to be Emarati? How about Saudi?
How about if we take the whole middle East. What is a Jordanian? How is he different from a Syrian? How about an Iraqi? Is an Iraqi from Mosul the same as an Iraqi from Al Basra?
It is really striking how the absolute majority of Arabic and Middle Eastern countries are the results of artificial construction, within the last one hundred years, usually by the whim of a couple of people.
In Bahrain, we do not notice this directly because Bahrain is indeed a distinct place that has been so for thousands of years. After all, Bahrain is a collection of Islands, that has always had its own particular circumstances and politics. No matter if it was called Dilmun, Aradous, Awal, or Bahrain, you can always identify the place throughout history, simply because of its natural characteristics (being an archipeligo).
This does not apply to the rest of the Middle East. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, in fact most of the modern day countries were born out of the struggle of the Superpowers at the beginning of the 1900s, particularly the wheeling and deeling between France and the UK. This was geopolitics at its best.
It's 1918, after the first world war had ended. The stage was Paris, where the treaty of Versailles was being negotiated. The British's main concern was to protect their route to India, and to fend of the French. The French's main concern was to keep tabs with the British, and jointly the two were worried about those darn Russians. Then there was also the small snag of the local people calling for independence. Most of the negotiations were conducted by a handful of men on each side. The spoils of the war, particularly from the Ottoman Empire, had to be divided up, and the Middle East was the map on which one of the most important games of MONOPOLY was ever played. Little did these men know that there actions would shape the area in such an upredictable and important manner.
The examples of the results that emerged are all over. Look at Jordan, which is a completely artificially constructed country, where nothing resembling a statehood existed before. In fact, legend has it that the reason Jordan has it's odd shaped borders is because of Churchill's hiccup. Apparently Churchill, who was in the foreign office at the time, just had a big and fulfilling meal. While drawing the map of Jordan, he hiccuped, resulting in the border which survives until this day.
Then you have Lebanon, which was born out of the French's want of Influence in the Levant, and their excuse of needing to protect the Christian minority living around Mount Lebanon.
It is an old cliche that the present day problems of the Arabic world are results of decisions made by the former empires, particularly the British and the French. I definitely do not like blaming our problems on others, but the Empire's construction of borders definitely did not help in reducing our troubles.
Let's take Lebanon. Although the French's main worry was the area around Mount Lebanon, where most of the christian community lived, their greed for more influence resulted in them bargaining for the surrounding area as well. This resulted in a country that included christians, sunnis, as well as Shias.
Sectarianism was not the only problem, however. Included in the newly emerged lebanon were Areas that were traditionally seen as part of Greater Syria. Does anyone wonder why Syria still wants to have a hand meddling in Lebanon's internal affairs?
In an area where politics and culture is mainly defined by religion, sect, and cultural background, this was bound to become a recipe for trouble. We are witnessing the results of such conflicts up until this day.
The countries of the Arabian Gulf, although not directly the product of the above time period, also emerged in an extremely artificial manner. In fact, the name "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" arised from a Western idea, as it was George Rendell, the head of the Middle East Division in the Foreign Office of the United Kingdom who suggested the name in 1932 to Ibn Saud, as Dr. Mdhawi Al Rasheed tells us.
There is absolutely nothing unusual about countries being created and constructed. Throughout history countries have been defined and redefined, as one can witness throughout the history of Central and Eastern Europe.. What is striking, however, is how many countries in the Middle East, almost singularly (along with countries in Africa) have risen out of the simple strokes of a few men. They did not arise naturally out of the internal events of a country, but were formed by the whims of a few men over dinner.
One of the most striking features of modern day states is how they redefine and reshape its citizens own attitudes. The institutions in place, the concept of patriotism, even football matches, can shape people to believe into ideas and entities that did not exist before. If you speak with Jordanians they would also see themselves as Jordanian. Many lebanese would loathe you if you mentioned any connection whatsoever with Syria. Indeed, states, even though artificially created, have the power to create a reality out of an idea.
The modern creation of a state, however, can lead to problems that did not exist before. Take Bahrain for example. We have been dragged into a fictitious conflict with Qatar that is simply the consequence of two families settling old scores. Although Bahrain and Qatar are as close as you get to each other blood and mentality wise, as most Bahrainis have relatives in Qatar, we somehow have come to see them as our mortal enemies. Although large chunks of Lebanon and Syria were traditionally seen as part of the same entity, nowadays leads to a poltical wrangle.
This history of many countries in the Middle East does lead one to suspect: are these countries stable as states? Is Jorand going to remain the Jordan we know it today in a few generations? Is Saudi Arabia going to remain Saudi Arabia? Are small countries of about 200,000 nationals each, which is the main characteristic in the gulf, sustainable in the long run? No where else in the world is there such a concentration of relatively small artificially constructed countries.
Although "what if" is the work of the devil, this also leads one to wonder of how things could've been. What if Churchill did not decide to pig out that day and hiccup? What if Bahrain and Qatar decided to join the UAE in a country?
What does the future , particularly with another superpower meddling around, hold for this area?
What if any of us actually bothered to read up on the history of our area?
¶
1:03 AM
Saturday, January 15, 2005
FIRE HIM
|The Bahrain Blogs Awards
The results are in, and the final votes have been counted. Here are the top five winners in each Category:
THE ORYX AWARD for monst notable commenter:
(Votes)
1. Insurgent (Bahrania) (28)
2. Steve the American (20)
3. Mahmood Al-Yousif ( 5 )
4. Scorpio ( 4 )
THE ORYX AWARD goes to BAHRANIA.
THE ALJA7ETH AWARD for funniest blog
1. Desert Island Boy (21 )
2. Bahraniat (16 )
3. Bahraini Blog (10)
4. Bahraini Rants (9)
5. Sabbah's Blog (6)
THE ALJA7ETH AWARD goes to DESERT ISLAND BOY
THE AIN ADHARI AWARD for best every-day life blog
1. Mahmood's Den (21 )
2. Sabbah's Blog (12)
3. Chan'ad Bahraini ( 10)
4. Reflections from Canada ( 6 )
5. Bahraini Blog ( 5 )
THE AIN ADHARI AWARD goes to MAHMOOD'S DEN
THE BAHRAIN FORT AWARD for best political blog
1. Bahraniat ( 31 )
2. Sabbah's Blog ( 18 )
3. Bahraini Blog ( 16 )
4. Reflections from Canada ( 5 )
5. Mahmood's Den ( 3 )
THE BAHRAIN FORT AWARD goes to BAHRANIAT
THE TREE OF LIFE AWARD for best overall blog
1. Bahraini Blog ( 25 )
2. Mahmood's Den ( 23 )
3. Sabbah's Blog ( 16 )
4. Reflections from Canada ( 7 )
5. Bahraniat ( 5 )
THE TREE OF LIFE AWARD goes to BAHRAINI BLOG
We are rightly entitled to be proud of our Bahraini blogging community. Although these polls are obviously biased towards my own readers, I hope they are a start for something more productive and exciting. Congratulations to all the winners, and thank you to all those who voted. May 2005 be a better and even more successful blogging year for all of us.
|
THE ORYX AWARD for monst notable commenter:
(Votes)
1. Insurgent (Bahrania) (28)
2. Steve the American (20)
3. Mahmood Al-Yousif ( 5 )
4. Scorpio ( 4 )
THE ORYX AWARD goes to BAHRANIA.
THE ALJA7ETH AWARD for funniest blog
1. Desert Island Boy (21 )
2. Bahraniat (16 )
3. Bahraini Blog (10)
4. Bahraini Rants (9)
5. Sabbah's Blog (6)
THE ALJA7ETH AWARD goes to DESERT ISLAND BOY
THE AIN ADHARI AWARD for best every-day life blog
1. Mahmood's Den (21 )
2. Sabbah's Blog (12)
3. Chan'ad Bahraini ( 10)
4. Reflections from Canada ( 6 )
5. Bahraini Blog ( 5 )
THE AIN ADHARI AWARD goes to MAHMOOD'S DEN
THE BAHRAIN FORT AWARD for best political blog
1. Bahraniat ( 31 )
2. Sabbah's Blog ( 18 )
3. Bahraini Blog ( 16 )
4. Reflections from Canada ( 5 )
5. Mahmood's Den ( 3 )
THE BAHRAIN FORT AWARD goes to BAHRANIAT
THE TREE OF LIFE AWARD for best overall blog
1. Bahraini Blog ( 25 )
2. Mahmood's Den ( 23 )
3. Sabbah's Blog ( 16 )
4. Reflections from Canada ( 7 )
5. Bahraniat ( 5 )
THE TREE OF LIFE AWARD goes to BAHRAINI BLOG
We are rightly entitled to be proud of our Bahraini blogging community. Although these polls are obviously biased towards my own readers, I hope they are a start for something more productive and exciting. Congratulations to all the winners, and thank you to all those who voted. May 2005 be a better and even more successful blogging year for all of us.
¶
1:03 AM
Friday, January 14, 2005
Something to warm the heart
|Identity
Who, or maybe more appropriately, what are we? Most of us would reply we are arabs.
What does it mean nowadays to be an Arab, however? Is it simply to come from certain areas of the middle East? Is it simply to speak Arabic as one's primary language? Is there anything about one's mentality that defines one as Arabic?
We are not the only ones grappling with such issues. People, countries, and civilizations all over the world are continuously redefining what they are and examining what they have become. It is slowly dawning on us that this is an age marked by true globalization, and by that I mean where most cultures and coutnries are melted into one bigger new culture (i.e. standardization). Instantaneous information, the internet, and the global reach of media and goods has speeded up the spread of thoughts and cultures across borders.
Inevitably, when such phenomenon occurs some cultures die and others survive. More strikingly, however is how one culture comes to dominate all others. It becomes the one that is spread farthest, and the one that penetrates and is adopted most by other countires. Naturally, the dominant military and economic force in the world turns out to be the one that possesses such a culture.
Time for some soul searching. How many of us watch primarily American or Western entertainment on TV? How many of us wear mainly western clothes (jeans, tshirts and shirts) most of the time we go out? How many of us consider western foods (including fast foods) to be a main constitute of our diet?
In fact, how many of us consider English to be their mother tongue, and not Arabic? By that I mean how many of us use Arabic as their preferred method of speaking? How many of us can speak Arabic without dropping in a few English words, or not having to think of an English word and then try to convert it to Arabic? How many of us can claim that their written classical Arabic is better than their English? If not us, can we say the same about our siblings, wives, relatives, and families? How many of us thinks his thoughts, outlook, and way of life, more closely resembles that of western urban areas than that of your average 3abood on the street?
Of course, we are not the best reflection of Bahraini society. Most of us are from an above average education and income background. We are the frontier of those who absorbed what other cultures had to offer. It is, however, a trend you find strongly in Bahrain. In fact, one can get the best jobs on offer in Bahrain without speaking a single word of Arabic. There is no way, however, that nowadays you'd get very far without knowing English. There are tons of people in Bahrain, including Bahrainis, who have extremely good jobs and can speak Arabic no better than their drivers.
This is not something unexpected, nor is it something new. It is a product of global and societal changes. The main reason that American culture has seeped through is not mainly because America has aggressively pushed it down people's throats, but because the culture is so irresistible. Look at their glossy and attractive movies, TV shows, and music. Look at the way they conduct business so efficiently. Look at how strong their higher education system is. It slowly seems to other cultures that the American ways are just so damn convenient, especially when other cultures as well start using them. Inevitably, we start adapting our cultures to them, while at the same time fooling ourselves that we are adapting their culture to ours.
I am not saying this process is good or bad. Although I do have my own views, I'm going to witthhold judgement. I am simply to trying to describe what is occuring.
This is very similar to how Arabic, and mainly Islamic culture got seeped through the world. It was not primarily because of violence (although wars were conducted). In fact, in the beginning of the Muslim age most Arabs did not want their subjects and others to convert to Islam, as they saw that as an increase in the number of the people who ruled a place and a threat to their dominance on political matters. People themselves, however, saw the benefits Islam brings along. For one, it was an encompassing humanist religion that made other religions with their unnecessary complexities and odd customs and dieties seem less attractive. They also saw that being a muslim brought along much economic success and prosperity. Hence, Islam spread all over the world, reaching Indonesia. This resulted in Islam introducing its own customs and norms in these countries, while whiping out others that were already there.
Similarly, this is occuring today (but obviously not mainly on a religious frontier). People are realizing that the Western dress code, business methods, and culture is so damn attractive and brings along many benefits as well. Hence, people start adopting it. The only difference is that nowadays information and travel occurs so frequently and easily that what took two hundred years before to occur now can occur in two generations.
This is even reflected in our thoughts, sports we play and societal structures. We all like football or car racing, which were invented in the Western world. Nowadays, all we talk about are democray and human rights, which are essentially products of western thought. You hear on the news " a world reknowned institute praised Bahrain for this and this and this". You can bet your house that this institute is somewhere in the Western world. Similarly, our universities pride themselves on being acknowledged by others in the US or the UK.
Even those who profess to be completely against the West and its ideas are at the end of the day a reaction to the West. They depend on their survival on Western ideas. Islamism in its present form took off in the late seventies, mainly as a reaction against the perceived onslaught of Western civilization. It is mainly a reactionary movement, whose primary objective is to say "NO NO NO" to anything western. They probably are fighting a losing battle.
The best example of the changes another culture can bring to place is Singapore. In a country that hosts diverse ethnic groups of Malay, Hindu, and Chinese, the melting pot resulted in something that is distinctly Western-derived. Their main language of communication is Singlish, which is a bastardized form of English. Their attire, business models, and city life most closely resembles that of Western cities.
A Bahraini minister once said that he will make it his goal to turn Bahrain into the "Singapore of the Gulf." Economicwise, he failed miserabley. Maybe his words might come true in other ways he did not expect.
|
What does it mean nowadays to be an Arab, however? Is it simply to come from certain areas of the middle East? Is it simply to speak Arabic as one's primary language? Is there anything about one's mentality that defines one as Arabic?
We are not the only ones grappling with such issues. People, countries, and civilizations all over the world are continuously redefining what they are and examining what they have become. It is slowly dawning on us that this is an age marked by true globalization, and by that I mean where most cultures and coutnries are melted into one bigger new culture (i.e. standardization). Instantaneous information, the internet, and the global reach of media and goods has speeded up the spread of thoughts and cultures across borders.
Inevitably, when such phenomenon occurs some cultures die and others survive. More strikingly, however is how one culture comes to dominate all others. It becomes the one that is spread farthest, and the one that penetrates and is adopted most by other countires. Naturally, the dominant military and economic force in the world turns out to be the one that possesses such a culture.
Time for some soul searching. How many of us watch primarily American or Western entertainment on TV? How many of us wear mainly western clothes (jeans, tshirts and shirts) most of the time we go out? How many of us consider western foods (including fast foods) to be a main constitute of our diet?
In fact, how many of us consider English to be their mother tongue, and not Arabic? By that I mean how many of us use Arabic as their preferred method of speaking? How many of us can speak Arabic without dropping in a few English words, or not having to think of an English word and then try to convert it to Arabic? How many of us can claim that their written classical Arabic is better than their English? If not us, can we say the same about our siblings, wives, relatives, and families? How many of us thinks his thoughts, outlook, and way of life, more closely resembles that of western urban areas than that of your average 3abood on the street?
Of course, we are not the best reflection of Bahraini society. Most of us are from an above average education and income background. We are the frontier of those who absorbed what other cultures had to offer. It is, however, a trend you find strongly in Bahrain. In fact, one can get the best jobs on offer in Bahrain without speaking a single word of Arabic. There is no way, however, that nowadays you'd get very far without knowing English. There are tons of people in Bahrain, including Bahrainis, who have extremely good jobs and can speak Arabic no better than their drivers.
This is not something unexpected, nor is it something new. It is a product of global and societal changes. The main reason that American culture has seeped through is not mainly because America has aggressively pushed it down people's throats, but because the culture is so irresistible. Look at their glossy and attractive movies, TV shows, and music. Look at the way they conduct business so efficiently. Look at how strong their higher education system is. It slowly seems to other cultures that the American ways are just so damn convenient, especially when other cultures as well start using them. Inevitably, we start adapting our cultures to them, while at the same time fooling ourselves that we are adapting their culture to ours.
I am not saying this process is good or bad. Although I do have my own views, I'm going to witthhold judgement. I am simply to trying to describe what is occuring.
This is very similar to how Arabic, and mainly Islamic culture got seeped through the world. It was not primarily because of violence (although wars were conducted). In fact, in the beginning of the Muslim age most Arabs did not want their subjects and others to convert to Islam, as they saw that as an increase in the number of the people who ruled a place and a threat to their dominance on political matters. People themselves, however, saw the benefits Islam brings along. For one, it was an encompassing humanist religion that made other religions with their unnecessary complexities and odd customs and dieties seem less attractive. They also saw that being a muslim brought along much economic success and prosperity. Hence, Islam spread all over the world, reaching Indonesia. This resulted in Islam introducing its own customs and norms in these countries, while whiping out others that were already there.
Similarly, this is occuring today (but obviously not mainly on a religious frontier). People are realizing that the Western dress code, business methods, and culture is so damn attractive and brings along many benefits as well. Hence, people start adopting it. The only difference is that nowadays information and travel occurs so frequently and easily that what took two hundred years before to occur now can occur in two generations.
This is even reflected in our thoughts, sports we play and societal structures. We all like football or car racing, which were invented in the Western world. Nowadays, all we talk about are democray and human rights, which are essentially products of western thought. You hear on the news " a world reknowned institute praised Bahrain for this and this and this". You can bet your house that this institute is somewhere in the Western world. Similarly, our universities pride themselves on being acknowledged by others in the US or the UK.
Even those who profess to be completely against the West and its ideas are at the end of the day a reaction to the West. They depend on their survival on Western ideas. Islamism in its present form took off in the late seventies, mainly as a reaction against the perceived onslaught of Western civilization. It is mainly a reactionary movement, whose primary objective is to say "NO NO NO" to anything western. They probably are fighting a losing battle.
The best example of the changes another culture can bring to place is Singapore. In a country that hosts diverse ethnic groups of Malay, Hindu, and Chinese, the melting pot resulted in something that is distinctly Western-derived. Their main language of communication is Singlish, which is a bastardized form of English. Their attire, business models, and city life most closely resembles that of Western cities.
A Bahraini minister once said that he will make it his goal to turn Bahrain into the "Singapore of the Gulf." Economicwise, he failed miserabley. Maybe his words might come true in other ways he did not expect.
¶
1:23 PM
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Arabic Music
What's up with Arabic music and songs nowadays? Watching mazika or music plus nowadays is more like watching soft porn with irritating music in the background.
It seems now that all arabic music is only about looking good on the screen, having half-naked women dancing around (with a couple of zoom in shots to entice the viewers), with a repetitive beat in the background just to keep things moving.
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against pop music. In fact, I think it plays an important part in exposing Arabic music to the outside world as is evident now, with people in Iran, Turky and even Europe listening to it. It is also quite entertaining in parties and 7aflat. I also definitely do not have any problem with scantily dressed women dancing for me in a seductive manner. But for 99.9% of the music to be tacky poppy crap? All of Arabic music nowadays has become what is known an 6arab and mu6rebeen (entertainment), fan and mughaniyeen is hard to come by. Is it too much to ask, to have a women shaking her breasts while having a good voice at the same time. Is too much to ask to have women wiggling their behinds AND have a good tune in the background?
Is it right for someone in my age to end up listening to Um Kulthoum and Feiruz? Before, Arabic music used to pride itself on having proper musicians such as Mohammed Abdul Wahab and Fareed Al Atrash. Look at Abdulhallem Hafeth: he was able to combine perfectly the act of singing poppy songs while also having a good tune and a good voice. Why can't we replicate that? Why are we left with crappy ripoffs of the Ketchup song?
I find it actually pretty embarassing seeing singers who look just about as good looking as a monkey, having a big gut and about four hairs on their head, and they are dressing up extravagantly, strutting around in Casanova poses, pretending to give away enticing gestures, surrounded by beautiful girls, thinking they are god's gift to women. Little do they know that if they did approach a woman in real life, they would probably be spat at, punched in their big fat belly, and have a 12-inch heel shoved up their mouth. It's amazing what a bit of fame can do to one's ego. Honestly, I feel like I'm watching one of these sarcastic sketch comedies that make fun of celebrities. Fat hairy bald guys surrounded by adoring beautiful women.
I really do think it is ripe time for small music labels to support alternative singers and bands with real talent, as people are soon going to demand quality music. There is always a market for pop music, but it also creates a market for other types of music, and this is the right time for it to emerge. The perfect video clip will also be one that takes the piss out of the current repititve genre of video clips.Imagine a video clip where someone has a beautiful hayfa wahbi lookalike dancing around when suddenly her fake nose falls off (a la eminem) or her fake breast falls from its position (which apparently actually happened on a plane).
Oh well, one can only dream.
|
It seems now that all arabic music is only about looking good on the screen, having half-naked women dancing around (with a couple of zoom in shots to entice the viewers), with a repetitive beat in the background just to keep things moving.
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against pop music. In fact, I think it plays an important part in exposing Arabic music to the outside world as is evident now, with people in Iran, Turky and even Europe listening to it. It is also quite entertaining in parties and 7aflat. I also definitely do not have any problem with scantily dressed women dancing for me in a seductive manner. But for 99.9% of the music to be tacky poppy crap? All of Arabic music nowadays has become what is known an 6arab and mu6rebeen (entertainment), fan and mughaniyeen is hard to come by. Is it too much to ask, to have a women shaking her breasts while having a good voice at the same time. Is too much to ask to have women wiggling their behinds AND have a good tune in the background?
Is it right for someone in my age to end up listening to Um Kulthoum and Feiruz? Before, Arabic music used to pride itself on having proper musicians such as Mohammed Abdul Wahab and Fareed Al Atrash. Look at Abdulhallem Hafeth: he was able to combine perfectly the act of singing poppy songs while also having a good tune and a good voice. Why can't we replicate that? Why are we left with crappy ripoffs of the Ketchup song?
I find it actually pretty embarassing seeing singers who look just about as good looking as a monkey, having a big gut and about four hairs on their head, and they are dressing up extravagantly, strutting around in Casanova poses, pretending to give away enticing gestures, surrounded by beautiful girls, thinking they are god's gift to women. Little do they know that if they did approach a woman in real life, they would probably be spat at, punched in their big fat belly, and have a 12-inch heel shoved up their mouth. It's amazing what a bit of fame can do to one's ego. Honestly, I feel like I'm watching one of these sarcastic sketch comedies that make fun of celebrities. Fat hairy bald guys surrounded by adoring beautiful women.
I really do think it is ripe time for small music labels to support alternative singers and bands with real talent, as people are soon going to demand quality music. There is always a market for pop music, but it also creates a market for other types of music, and this is the right time for it to emerge. The perfect video clip will also be one that takes the piss out of the current repititve genre of video clips.Imagine a video clip where someone has a beautiful hayfa wahbi lookalike dancing around when suddenly her fake nose falls off (a la eminem) or her fake breast falls from its position (which apparently actually happened on a plane).
Oh well, one can only dream.
¶
3:33 PM
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
No end in site
Well the new year has not begun with the most brilliant start.
Aside from the Tsunami catastrophe, the situation has become worse and worse in Iraq. Anyone who thinks this is going to go away in the next year is either a supreme optimist or a darn fool. The violence is ending anytime soon, well at least not in 2005. Let's just hope 2006 is better.
Violence and killing has continued its momentum, and in fact has increased. Here is why I think the violence is not disappearing shortly:
-There are actually people out there who thinks it is a holy or national duty to fight the Americans. Added to this, thousands off people have been put in a situation with nothing to lose, where the war has directly resulted in their loss of family and jobs. Most see the Americans to blame.
-There are too many parties with vested interest in the fighting, and more importantly, the unrest to continue. One could make the argument that some neighbouring countries and parties see it in their own interest for the fighting to go on. A stable and powerful Iraq might frighten certain forces.
-This, I think is an extremely important point but that is often overlooked. The violence has actually become intrenched in the economy, and has become profitable for some people. This is extremely dangerous, as although religion and ideology might motivate some, money always talks, and it talks to pileload of people. The most dangerous thing, that of the violence being entrenched in the economy, has occured. There are thousands of people out there benefiting from the status quo. On the Iraqi side, other than the insurgents and Baathists, there are ordinary Iraqis who benefit from the insurgeny. Just as there are private companies benefiting from the American sides, there is money to be made from the Insurgents. For example, Insurgents could offer an Iraqi security officer $1000 dollars to lax the security entering into an American base (i.e. perform an inside job), or even more simply they could offer money to a security officer to inform them of a route an American convoy is taking that day in order to set up a bomb. This is not to mention the abductions, which have become a profitable business.
There is also money to be made on the other side. Let's face it, it is in the benefit of private security companies in Iraq for the current situation to continue. A billions dollar industry is set up solely based on the violence. They're not going to be extremely disappointed if the violence does not end soon.
The situation has become pretty desperate with only sunni insurgents doing the main part of the attacks. That does not bode well. What if the other factions start coming in? We saw a prelude to such a scenario earlier in the year when muqtada Al Sadr decided to stand up until he was shut up. What if the shia decide to join the insurgency. Worse yet, what if another Karbalaa bombing occurs and shi3i factions decide to retaliate? A full blown civil war is a worse case scenario, but is not that improbable.
Take the Kurdish situation for example. The media usually presents their situation as the exemplary one, an ideal calm situation that the rest of Iraq should follow. This masks a lot of hidden problems. Their history in the recent past has been riddled with infighting and tribal feuds. In fact, the situation most closely resembles that of Afghanistan, where different warlords have their own army and supporters, and then they fight between each other. Take for example the continuous fighting between Jalal Talebani and Masoud Barzani. The only factor that has been keeping the situation relatively quiet is American support and pressure to behave themselves. What if things spiral out of control? One can only wonder.
The shit has already hit the fan, and it is not going to be blown away any time soon. In fact, a bigger, smellier, darker piece of turd could be on its way flying in. Someone better do a good job of mopping up the mess.
|
Aside from the Tsunami catastrophe, the situation has become worse and worse in Iraq. Anyone who thinks this is going to go away in the next year is either a supreme optimist or a darn fool. The violence is ending anytime soon, well at least not in 2005. Let's just hope 2006 is better.
Violence and killing has continued its momentum, and in fact has increased. Here is why I think the violence is not disappearing shortly:
-There are actually people out there who thinks it is a holy or national duty to fight the Americans. Added to this, thousands off people have been put in a situation with nothing to lose, where the war has directly resulted in their loss of family and jobs. Most see the Americans to blame.
-There are too many parties with vested interest in the fighting, and more importantly, the unrest to continue. One could make the argument that some neighbouring countries and parties see it in their own interest for the fighting to go on. A stable and powerful Iraq might frighten certain forces.
-This, I think is an extremely important point but that is often overlooked. The violence has actually become intrenched in the economy, and has become profitable for some people. This is extremely dangerous, as although religion and ideology might motivate some, money always talks, and it talks to pileload of people. The most dangerous thing, that of the violence being entrenched in the economy, has occured. There are thousands of people out there benefiting from the status quo. On the Iraqi side, other than the insurgents and Baathists, there are ordinary Iraqis who benefit from the insurgeny. Just as there are private companies benefiting from the American sides, there is money to be made from the Insurgents. For example, Insurgents could offer an Iraqi security officer $1000 dollars to lax the security entering into an American base (i.e. perform an inside job), or even more simply they could offer money to a security officer to inform them of a route an American convoy is taking that day in order to set up a bomb. This is not to mention the abductions, which have become a profitable business.
There is also money to be made on the other side. Let's face it, it is in the benefit of private security companies in Iraq for the current situation to continue. A billions dollar industry is set up solely based on the violence. They're not going to be extremely disappointed if the violence does not end soon.
The situation has become pretty desperate with only sunni insurgents doing the main part of the attacks. That does not bode well. What if the other factions start coming in? We saw a prelude to such a scenario earlier in the year when muqtada Al Sadr decided to stand up until he was shut up. What if the shia decide to join the insurgency. Worse yet, what if another Karbalaa bombing occurs and shi3i factions decide to retaliate? A full blown civil war is a worse case scenario, but is not that improbable.
Take the Kurdish situation for example. The media usually presents their situation as the exemplary one, an ideal calm situation that the rest of Iraq should follow. This masks a lot of hidden problems. Their history in the recent past has been riddled with infighting and tribal feuds. In fact, the situation most closely resembles that of Afghanistan, where different warlords have their own army and supporters, and then they fight between each other. Take for example the continuous fighting between Jalal Talebani and Masoud Barzani. The only factor that has been keeping the situation relatively quiet is American support and pressure to behave themselves. What if things spiral out of control? One can only wonder.
The shit has already hit the fan, and it is not going to be blown away any time soon. In fact, a bigger, smellier, darker piece of turd could be on its way flying in. Someone better do a good job of mopping up the mess.
¶
1:18 AM
Only three days
Only three days left for the voting, and the contest is close! Some people in Bahrain have emailed me because of problems for voting. I sincerely regret that, but blame Batelco for using the same IP address for all of Bahrain sometimes. Anyway, good luck, and may the best blog win!
|
¶
1:00 AM
Powered for Blogger by Blogger templates
