Sunday, December 2, 2012

The Reckoning



Sometimes I read my posts of the early revolution days and laugh, and at other times I read them and feel sorrowful, but for sure it was an exceptional, albeit costly, learning experience, not just for me, but for the current generation of my fellow countrymen. We saw dreams rise and fall before our eyes, something that not many people in the world did in their lifetimes; most people live and die with their big national dreams staying the same, just dreams, without materialising into facts. Some say that whole lifetime experiences that normally span several decades were compressed into two and half years, the adolescent ambitions, the realization of the big gap between dreams and reality and the discrepancy between the future plans of each party forming a coalition, and the disillusionment of witnessing dreams turning into nightmares.

Sometimes I blame myself for getting carried away with the revolutionary wave and the hopeful spirit 
like that, and think that I should have known better, but then I recall how all the country’s writers and intellectuals shared in the sweeping euphoria of those days. It was rather foolish to hope one day that democracy and progressiveness could be achieved without secularism. Me, out of everyone, should have known better. There were signs that many of us deliberately ignored during the early days and decided to go through with the revolutionary spirit. This proved costly, and all of us paid the price, some more than others. Of course there are the sole winners, the victorious followers of certain political/religious ideology who ended up achieving what they have been planning for years, these reaped what they, and their allies, sowed for years and decades and their political shrewdness during the transition period proved much superior to the naivety and gullibility of the civil secular parties. It is even questionable that these civil parties, dominated mostly by the left-wing and Nasserists, would have been much better if they reached power.

I can't believe that my response, during the early days of the uprising, to the question of what will happen next, was that I don't know and I don't care, and that I despised those who sought clear future plans. How I was unaware of the monster in the waiting, a monster who knows exactly what it wants and sets realistic goals and works towards achieving it, is beyond me now. As much as I hate saying that, one of the people I used to make fun of was actually right when he said in the early days, that we two roads, a known and an unknown one, and that it was a no-brainer to refrain from the unknown one. I owe an apology to General Omar Soliman as well whom I despised, the same way I despised anyone who repeated his famous words "but when..". The basic definition of democracy is confused in the minds of most of my countrymen with fascism, and it was clear since the first referendum that things would go the way it went later, the way the realists expected early on. Now, seeing the outcome of all of that, regardless of who did what and what the influence of external powers was, I realise the price we, or rather poor Egyptians, paid for try to fix things by radical revolution rather than legitimacy. It is funny how I ridiculed in the past those who called for respecting legitimacy, the same way “reformist” at some point was considered a libel opposed to the “glorious” term of “revolutionary” is some mediums.

After 1 year it started to become clear, even for a determined revolutionist and proponent of radical change, half a year later it became so obvious and impossible to ignore. Considering the difference between reality and dreams became a must if we really care about common people that everyone likes to preach in their name and achieve political victories on their expense. The poor won’t eat our revolutionary slogans that won't lead anywhere. Fighting epic lost battles can be morally satisfying for our egos and the tempting attitude of “us against the world” can be quite seductive for many but the reality is that there are millions out there who are unwilling to have this fight and we had to respect and accept that, and accept as well that an overnight change was impossible expect with a huge cost that almost none of us and most certainly the common people we talk about are not willing to pay, and that gradual reform is the less painful alternative specially with the heavy burden of poverty and illiteracy we are carrying. It was also lamentable how some activists and many of us were dragged into ridiculing how common people cared about (trivial) things like food and security rather than freedom and democracy that global media and international journalists like to think and talk about, and like to believe that all Egyptians fight for them but that's not the truth, and it's equally fascist, like military and religious fascism, to decide on behalf of the people. 

So what did I learn? A lot, at times I feel I've grown up 20 years in these last two years which, despite being beneficial hopefully, can be sad in itself. Sometimes I catch myself missing these days when I believed dreams can come true for a nation, the same way we miss the days of childhood innocence and the days I believed in a god whom I asked solve my problems on my behalf.



Saturday, November 3, 2012

Review: Football Against The Enemy


Football Against The Enemy
Football Against The Enemy by Simon Kuper

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



A question I'm often asked from friends and acquaintances, specially with my other interests, is why I like football that much. One side is because it's involved with many things around us; in addition to strategies, chess-like tactics, and drama, it involves economy, specially nowadays, and more interestingly, politics; which is what the book discusses. The writer takes us for a journey from Eastern Europe to USA, from Latin America to Africa, to witness the interaction between football and politics, and how the love of football is used by governments and how it can affect, to a certain extent, political decisions and therefore, people's lives. This topic in particular is of great fascination to me, and something I always felt I could write about; witnessing a great-deal of it in Egypt myself, I have to say that at first I was slightly disappointed that I was beaten to it!

I really enjoyed some chapters of this book; the one about Helenio Herrera, and the African and Latin American stories, and to a lesser extent the Russian, Ukranian, and Scottish stories. The main obvious drawback of this book, however, is that it's fairly outdated. Written in the early 90's, the world, and the world of football in particular, is not the same now, except in Africa maybe. This affected some chapters and almost ruined them; like the chapters about Gazzamania and Barcelona.

Another source of nuisance for me was some incisive judgements made by the writer about the future, taking into consideration that most of them proved to be wrong such as the one regarding the future of the Dutch national team after the retirement of Gullit, Rijkaard, and Van Basten and the other one about the soon-to-be folding of FC Berlin, the club that belonged to the East-German Berlin before the unity, among others. Also, the book could have done, in my opinion, without a lot of the writer's unnecessary journey details, and condescending comments. I often found the humour not that funny actually.

One last remark, is about what he mentioned of the fascination of English people with football and how every man, at least, is a fan of a team. Probably it's the outdatedness, but from my personal experience in England, this is not true, at least in the places where I live and work! This makes me wonder if the Old Firm derby, for example, is the same now; its passion might have got diluted as well. Sadly I can't know for sure as Glasgow Rangers now, at the time of this writing, is in the third division for bankruptcy reasons.

All in all it's worth reading if you like football and have some interest in politics. It's essential at least to realise the connection between the two specially in the developing countries. I hope I can write one day, following the same line, on Egypt and middle-east football/politics connection.

----

* Note: There was a mistake in P.100, when the writer says that Egypt was the first African country to play in the World Cup by simply showing up without any qualifications. This is not true, as Egypt qualified by beating Palestine/Israel 7-1 and 4-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification). This mistake, which could've been easily avoided, casted doubts for me on the other facts mentioned elsewhere in the book, now all the dates and names have to be double-checked. This was quite disappointing and really unexpected at this level to be frank.



View all my reviews

Thursday, September 13, 2012

رسالة الى قريتى الحبيبة -1



المظاهرات تتواصل لليوم الثالث أمام السفارة الأمريكية، انزال العلم وحرقة ورفع شعار التوحيد مكانه، قتل السفير الأمريكى فى ليبيا من أجل فيلم أو رسم أو كتاب أو أيا كان .. يخيل إلى يا صديقى أننا مررنا بهذا الموقف من قبل، نعم منذ أعوام قليلة فى أزمة الدنمرك وستتكرر بعدها، ستكرر كثيرا، ثق فى هذا ياصديقى، كنت مخطئا عندما ظننت أننا نمضى للأمام .. لم يعد السكوت ممكنا وأنا أرى أهلى يساقون كالخراف فى معارك وهمية، أتألم بشدة وهم يتخبطون فى الظلام بعد أن أعمتهم الكراهية وخيم الظلام على عقولهم وقلوبهم.

كثيرا ما سألت نفسى لماذا هذه الحساسية الشديدة دوما من جانب بنى وطنى المسلمين لأى نقد لدينهم ونبيهم خلاف أصحاب المعتقدات الأخرى الذين يتعاملون مع النقد بصورة مختلفة، هل هم متدينون أكثر من غيرهم؟ فلماذا لا ينعكس هذا على سلوكياتهم اليومية؟ هل هم ضيقو الأفق محدودو العقل كالأطفال ينفعلون سريعا، أطفال مسلحين بالقنابل والرشاشات، لا أعتقد هذا فأنا أعرف ربما المئات شخصيا من المتدينين والكثير منهم يتمتع بعقل راجح .. السبب فى رأيى هو التدليل، نعم التدليل، المسلم فى مجتمعنا العربى بما أنه يعيش وسط أغلبية مسلمة فحياته كلها قضاها وسط المديح للنبى والصحابة ولعظمة القران واعجازه والأصوات القليلة التى تخالف السائد اما يتم اسكاتها سريعا او وصمها بأبشع التهم فتخفت تدريجيا فى مجتمع يصلح كـTest case  لدراسى علم الاجتماع (علم الاجتماع اللى بجد مش بتاع الجامعات المصرية) من كثرة أمراضه الاجتماعية، الشك فى مجتمعنا ليس فى أصل الدين لكن الخلاف غالبا حول صحة بعض الاحاديث وما الى ذلك من الامور الهامشية .. الكثير يقضى سنوات طويلة قبل ان يقابل أحدا ينتمى لديانة أخرى، فيستطيع بالكاد أن يصدق أن هناك بشريا اخر لا يعتقد فى نبوة رسوله، زميلى فى المدرسة الابتدائية قال لى يوما أنه لاحظ أن المسيحيين كلهم عندهم لغد تحت رقبتهم، كانت هناك تلك الرغبة الحارقة فى أن يكتشف شيئا مختلف فيهم، لا يريد أن يصدق أن ملامحهم مثله تماما، ربما الخنزير الذى يأكلون لحمه يغير اذا من رائحتهم؟ .. بينما المصرى غير المسلم يسمع يوميا نقدا وتشكيكا وطعنا يصل لحد الاهانة، تعود على هذا من صغره وكون مضاداته النفسية التى تحمى معتقده، المسيحى فى الغرب فى العصور الحديثة يفعل الشىء نفسه وربما الهندوسى والمسلم والبوذى هناك أيضا .. المجتمع المغلق الذى يكره الخلاف ويرفض الخروج من كهف أفلاطون هو السبب الأهم فى هذه الحالة التى اراها فريدة.

هناك حقائق لابد أن يعرفها الجميع، ربما تكون قاسية على البعض وربما تفاجئك يا صديقى لكنها أصبحت ضرورية، دينك الذى تفتخر به أيا كان وثنيا أو هندوسيا أو اسلاميا او مسيحيا ومعابدك وكتبك وأنبياءك وآلهتك لا تمثل أى شىء عند مليارات البشر على سطح هذا الكوكب بل هى مثار سخريتهم (لاحظ ياصديقى كيف تتحدث عن عابدى الأصنام والأبقار)، هى حقيقة تبدو بسيطة جدا لكن يبدو أن الكثيرين لا يعرفونها جيدا .. فى الحالة المصرية  ثنائية مسلم-مسيحى يجب أن نعرف ونصارح بعضنا البعض أن المسيحى (by definition) يعتبر نبى الاسلام شخصا عاديا، تاجرا عاش فى شبه الجزيرة واستطاع بذكائه تكوين بذرة امبراطورية حكمت العالم المتحضر لقرون، المسيحى لا يعترف بالقران ويعتبره مثل اى كتاب اخر، وأى شخص يقول لك نحن نحترم كل الأنبياء فهو يستخدم دبلوماسيته، وبالمثل المسلم يرى المسيحية تم تحريفها وأن رسل المسيحية ماهم الا مجموعة من الأفاقين النصابين والا فلماذا نزل الاسلام اساسا ومصطلح الديانات السماوية لا وجود له أساسا لأن الدين عند الله الاسلام .. هذه هى الحقيقة الصريحة الجافة وأمامنا أحد حلين، اما أن يدمروا بعضهم بعضا بالقنابل النووية، أو أن يتعلما العيش سويا كما تفعل الكائنات الطبيعية فى باقى العالم، لا حل ثالث هنالك طالما أنه لا يوجد أى طريقة علمية لاثبات صحة أساطير أحد الفريقين .. فى الكيمياء مثلا اذا قلت أن جزىء الصوديوم عندما يضاف الى الكلورين يتكون كلوريد الصوديوم وخصائصه كذا، وقلت أنت بل يتكون حمض الكبريتيك يكون الحل سهلا، نذهب الى المعمل ونقوم بتجربة علمية ونرى النتيجة ومن كان على خطأ سيعترف بخطأه وتمضى البشرية فى طريقها مستفيدة بالتجربة، أما فى الحالة الدينية فاثبات اى شىء مستحيل، هل صلب أم لم يصلب؟ لو ظللنا نتحاجج قرونا لن نصل لشىء لأن لا أنا ولا أنت رأينا ولا يوجد توثيق باستثناء بعض الحروف على الاوراق وقس على هذا باقى المناظرات، وربما هذا هو السبب فى الحروب الدينية على مر القرون، عندما تقرأ عن الحروب الدموية التى استمرت لقرون بين الكاثوليك والبروتستانت فى أوروبا حول خلافات تبدو مضحة لمن يأخذ خطوة واحدة للوراء ويرى الصورة الكاملة، وهو نفس ما تمضى اليه منطقتنا باصرار غريب بالمناسبة .. اللجوء للعقل والمنطق فى الترجيح بين الأديان سيطرحها أرضا من الجولة الأولى، ولم أستطع أيضا أن أفهم قط العلاقة بين الطعن فى معتقد الاخر وكيف أن هذا يدعم موقف صاحب المعتقد الأول، تأمل معى هذا المنطق، اذا كان المعتقد (أ) خطأ فالمعتقد (ب) هو الصواب! المنطق نفسه يستعمل يوميا فى الصراع بين أنصار نظرية الخلق وعلماء التطور، اذا كانت هناك حلقة وسيطة مفقودة فى التطور او ان كان هناك شك فى نظرية بداية الكون فهذا معناه بالضرورة صحة النظرية الاولى.

هناك حقائق أخرى مزعجة .. الأفلام التى تسخر من فكرة الأديان الابراهيمية عموما ومن كل المعتقدات موجودة على الانترنت بالالاف ، وفيلم اليوتيوب ضعيف الانتاج هذا بامكانى أن أجد عشرة مثله بسهولة بعد بحث قصير يستغرق دقئاق معدودة، بمنتهى البساطة يمكننى أن أنشر واحد منهم كل شهرين وأحط خمسة جنيه فى يد واحد من شيوخ القنوات الدينية فيعرضه على الملايين ونوجه الغوغاء فى اى اتجاه نراه، هولندا بلجيكا كوستاريكا الكونجو الديمقراطية، المجتمع يهىء الفرصة لأى شخص أن يفعل مايريد .. بلاش، طفل الثامنة يمكنه تصوير فيلم بتليفونه يسخر فيه من كل ماتتخيل من ثوابتك فماذا أنت فاعل؟ ردك بالاعتداء والسباب عموما دليل على ضعف موقفك وان انكرت ذلك (هل ضعف الموقف هو ما يؤدى الى حالة الغليان هذه؟) .. حقيقة اخرى، الغرب لن يفرط فى الحرية مهما حدث، لانه انتزعها انتزاعا بعد عصور الظلام فهو يعض عليها بالنواجذ، حرية الفكر والتعبير هى أثمن ما توصل اليه ولن يتركه لأنه يضايقك، الاعتداء على الافراد فعلا ولفظا مجرم قانونا (دولة القانون أيضا أحد الاختراعات التى لم تصلنا بعد) وخطاب العنصرية كذلك لكن نقاش الأفكار لن يمنعه أحد، نقطة ومن أول السطر.

لا أخاطب هنا كل الناس فأنا أثق فى رجاحة عقلك، الاختيار الذى وضعته أمامك منذ قليل سيجيب عليه الكثيرين بأنهم يفضلون أن نتقاتل حتى نفنى جميعا كأغبياء .. أثق بك وأتمنى أن نستطيع اقناع اهل قريتنا برغم كل شىء، من يريد الحياة فى القبور التى صنعها الأجداد فليعش هكذا، لكن ليس من حقه أن يجبر الاخرين على نفس الشىء، الموضوع بهذه البساطة، عش فى فقاعتك واستمتع باساطيرك ياصديقى واستمد منها الالهام والتعزية واحلم بحياة أخرى غير هذه التى سرقوها منك، حقك، لكن لا تجبرنى على الشىء نفسه، ولا تحرمنى حقى فى أن أرى أن كل ماتعيش فيه وهم ولا تسلبنى حرية التعبير عن رأيى مثلما تمتلكها أنك وتهاجم مخالفيك ليل نهار .. أرجو أن تخبرنى ما وجه الصعوبة فى ذلك؟

ربما تكون رسالتى قد صدمتك برغم أن مفاهيمها سهلة وبسيطة للغاية، لم أدخل فى أى تفاصيل بعد .. اقرأها مرة أخرى بعد أن تهدأ وفكر ببطء وبهدوء وتامل وجهة النظر الأخرى.

صديقك (ك)
13-9-2012

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Review: Life of Galileo


Life of Galileo
Life of Galileo by Bertolt Brecht

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



"My object is not to establish that I was right but to find out if I am."

g.g



Galileo Galilei has been always one of my favorite historical characters, and a source of inspiration at times, specially whenever a debate concerning reason took place. I have to admit, however, that I hadn't read that much about him in depth, just some essays in books discussing the humanity's struggle for freedom and reason, as well as web references here and there. I kind of enjoyed referring to him and creating my own idea about his character and recantation; my own Galileo Galilei. Here Brecht sheds light on Galileo's story from a new perspective to me.

The play was quite entertaining and thought-provoking at the same time, and I thoroughly enjoyed every bit of it. Several meanings can be read into the play; the need to doubt, the fight for reason, defying authorities, and science's moral obligation, where parallels can be easily drawn to today's world. The issue of Earth's rotation may be now settled (not for everyone, sadly) but Galileo's battle for reason hasn't ended since, the same struggle and debate take place almost everyday with different subjects; a struggle between reason and rigid ideas. The play's main concern in my opinion, however, is Galileo's recantation that, according to the writer, allowed science to deviate from its ideal path and lose connection with what's supposed to be its main aim, namely to lighten the burden of human existence. His recantation, in this view, merely helped deliver science to the arms of rulers and thus starting a new course for science that could lead eventually to the destruction of mankind.

Here you'll see science in its blooming youth
Also its first compromises with the truth (*)


The play brilliantly depicts the conflict between Galileo and the Church with splendid conversations with high-ranked church officials (the church here functions as authority in general), it also underpins the social aspect of the fight, which is consistent of course with Brecht's political views, between the ruling and the working classes. The penultimate scene presents Brecht's Galileo's conception of science for the people and emphasises the basic message of the play, where Galileo, imprisoned in his home by the inquisition, self-reproaches his human weakness that led to the decision to recant, refutes any suggestion of slyness in deceiving the authorities in order to proceed secretly with his research and finish his book "Discorsi", lectures about what science should be really about, and warns from a dark future ahead declaring that no achievement is valuable enough to make up for the damage caused by a betrayal of mankind.

The play doesn't idealise Galilei at all, on the contrary it blames him of wasting the opportunity to bring science to common people after he led science into social battle and abandoned it, and that by recanting and failing his supporters, he started the era where science would be a tool in the hands of rulers which eventually led to dropping that bomb that day in August, 1945. Brecht's play regards the atomic bomb as an end-product of Galileo's contribution to science and failure to contribute to society. The historical Galilei is quite controversial specially about what's behind his recantation, and some critics argue that the real Galileo was more speculative and less rational than Brecht's. I think I need to read more non-fictional history about him and some facts about the legal side of his trial as well.

According to the editor, this play is the most worked-over of all Brecht's plays. Its first version was written in German before the second world war and then it was re-written for the American stage emphasizing the message about the moral responsibility of science specially after the appalling results of the war. Then a third German version, an extended one, was written in the fifties for the East German stage. I've read the final one and then found myself reading the American version which was included in the appendix of the book edition I have got. the American one is much shorter and a bit lighter but quite entertaining as well. I recommend this play to everyone, I wanted to include in my review the quotes and scene's opening verses that I utterly enjoyed but then I would have included almost the whole book.

----
Off-topic note:

After reading the play, I found myself returning to a couple of songs for the symphonic metal band "Haggard" that I some time ago during my university years and was quite interested in translating their italian and sometimes latin lyrics before the age of google translate (or at least I wasn't aware of at the time). The songs were of their album "Eppur Si Muove = And yet it moves". I find the album and specially the track "Per Aspera Ad Astra = A rough way to the stars" worth giving a listen.
----

(*) from prologue to American production



View all my reviews

Friday, March 30, 2012

Review: The Trial


The Trial
The Trial by Franz Kafka

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



What an interesting journey inside Kafka's absurd reverie; the existential tale that is, like great books, highly controversial and can be interpreted on many levels. The Kafkaesque surrealism and absurdity were quite gripping to say the least with their uncommon characters inside a bureaucratic totalitarian state in the modern industrial age. The novel is about the bleak tale of the protagonist, Josef K., who is caught in a labyrinth of incomprehensible circumstances after being prosecuted with a charge that he knows nothing about in a bureaucratic legal system that virtually no one knows for sure how it works. The story follows his futile efforts to prove his innocence and meanwhile we encounter the other secondary characters with their peculiar behaviour and surreal conversations. There are quite numerous interpretations for this nightmarish story; political, economical, and even religious explanations, for example, the trial might represent life itself, where we are under-arrest trying all the time to understand its meaning and escape our verdicts, the lawyer who claims to know the inner-workings of the court might represent religion in this sense and so on. The story also depicts the desperate life of the common people, and their fear, weakness, and inability which are by-products of the modern industrial age where fear of losing jobs controls peoples' lives.

Despite reading a lot about Kafka style's and for other writers who imitate this style and create similar worlds, this was my first encounter with any of his works and it surely won't be the last. Since I finished it days ago, I couldn't help spending hours and hours with the critical writings about this novel and the kafkian world in general.

I find it worth mentioning that the edition I read was Max Brod's one (Kafka's close friend who first published this incomplete novel after his death in contrary to what was stipulated in his will- to burn all his unpublished works), it came to my knowledge later that subsequent publications included six more chapters that Max Brod considered incomplete. In fact, arguably all the chapters in a sense are incomplete as they weren't revised by Kafka himself. There is also much dispute about the proper chapter sequence between scholars who studied in depth the character development, and some critics believe that it can’t be even described as a novel but should be rather treated as distinct unconnected chapters whose sequence can be left to the reader.

For me, the fact that the novel is incomplete, the different translations (as that of the final sentence), and the controversy about the proper sequence and the incomplete chapters, which brings to mind the controversy about old scriptures, played a part in my affection and fascination with the whole thing. I have a feeling that it will open the door to further and deeper readings of Kafka's legacy.



View all my reviews