Wednesday 16 October 2013

What it is to be famous? A question I really want to ask of Andrew Marr....



What it is to be famous!

And what keeps your name and fame alive …..a question from one who isn’t famous! 
But one I really want to ask of Andrew Marr……

But as I say, since I’m not famous, so I wouldn’t know what keeps your name alive, but when a really famous person (no, not  reality tv, and not tv soap) I’m referring to  Prof Higgs, who does not own a mobile phone, said a former neighbour had pulled up in her car as he was returning from lunch in Edinburgh to tell him he was co-winner of the Nobel Prize…..now, that’s being famous. 
Stopped in the street!

Prof Higgs is quoted as saying…: "She congratulated me on the news and I said 'oh, what news?'" …. And after all these years, and knowing that the awards were coming round again…that’s also modesty! Oh, and he's just beginning to think of retiring.


On Thursday last week, Malala was awarded the EU's Sakharov human rights prize. Tho’ she had been tipped for the Nobel Peace Prize, that went instead to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the body overseeing the destruction of Syria's chemical arsenal.
By now, most of us will have heard of her, would recognise her name and probably her picture, too. A native of Pakistan's mountainous Swat Valley, Malala rose to prominence in 2009 after writing an anonymous blog for the BBC Urdu service about her life under Taliban rule and the lack of education for girls, which made her moderately famous. 
But for the wrong reasons, she’s now known as the girl that the Taliban failed to kill, and more recently, more positively, as the girl campaigning for girls’ education. All of which is combining to make her famous. And today we learn she's to be made an honorary Canadian citizen.



But what makes you famous, and even more so, keeps your name and fame alive? 
And let’s be honest, how many famous women from across the world, across the centuries can we all name beyond a few from yesterday's papers?

One of my personal heroes is Rigoberta Menchu Tum born in north western Guatemala. Now, she did win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992, 
For me it was seeing her here in Edinburgh, courtesy of SEAD,  listening to her speak, unaided, no prompts, no notes, but speaking calmly and confidently, re-telling her story:  her siblings and friends dying because of unsafe labour conditions and extreme poverty. 
Her own family’s extreme poverty prevented her from receiving any formal education, but in her teens, she began to protest against human-rights abuses by the military. Her mother, father, and brother were murdered, forcing her to flee. 
In Mexico, she spoke of the cruel treatment of the indigenous people in Guatemala, hoping she could make a difference.  
Eventually, her book, yes, she had a book published, two infact, but the first was translated as: I, Rigoberta Menchu, bringing her world fame and her role as a symbol of the brutality endured by native and marginalized people.
But will her name stay alive after she is not? It’s not unusual to be lost in history, and the mists of time.



So am I alone in finding the irony in the fact that it is alleged that the first ‘English’ person, i.e non native to be born in the USA is recorded as a female: Virginia Dare in 1587, and less than 300 years later, we have female activists such Harriet Tubman, born 1820, born into slavery, who once she escaped, became a conductor on the 

 Underground Railroad. http://www.biography.com

Then there was Ida Wells-Barnet (born 1862 to enslaved parents) founding a newspaper, the Memphis Free Speech, publishing articles denouncing the outbreak of lynchings in the Southern USA, and that she, a woman worked almost to the end of her days promoting  civil rights and women's suffrage. Wells became one of the original founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909. 

 http://www.factmonster.com 



And the irony of it all?After all, Virginia’s parents went there for a new life, a better life (does that sound familiar…were they migrants, escaping…something?), and then, the native ‘Americans’ suffered, followed by the enslavement and forced migration of Africans. Woman to woman, three hundred years…….those seeking freedom not found in their own home country set the scene for the decimation of  the original inhabitants and enslaved others.

All I’m saying is, famous people often get wiped from history. So should we try to keep fame famous? After all, it’s not their fault they get wiped from history…his story?

How could we try to keep some famous names alive and kicking either once the owners have become dearly departed, or better still when they’re still here? And where does Andrew Marr fit into all of this?


 Andrew William Stevenson Marr is a Scottish journalist and political commentator. He edited The Independent, and was political editor of BBC News......

 He's soooooooo famous, I don't need to add more here, surely!

Well, there was info circulated very recently that announced AM  is to present a programme that encapsulates the history of Scottish literature. So far, so good. But it’s called: The Men who Invented Scotland’. But hang on, is that fame? Being recognised by your initials? Or maybe  AM shares something with Prince Charles..the ears?

No one  denies that our literature here has in all probability been dominated by men. Domination though is not the same as a lack of female contributors. 

Men in the past, men in the present?My own favourites include Scott, Burns, Stevenson : you can see what I read as a child!!.
And then later, where would I have been without the likes of McILvanney, Kelman and the wonderful Gray? 
Is that fame…when just your surname is enough? 
For them? No, their fame if that is what it is, is built on quality, the ability to challenge, stimulate, provoke, enrage, enthral. 
Of course there were female writers, contributors. Margaret Elphinstone. And even earlier, Mary Brunton, who had a follower no less that Jane Austen. 

The lack of female writers ‘making it’ into the public domain is not a reflection on either women not writing, nor does it evidence women not being able to write. 

It is more a reflection of society’s view of women, and what they should and should not be doing.
And yes, those who did make it are easily & subsequently air brushed.  Remember Aphra Benn? Sorry perhaps that should be…who remembers Aphra Benn?

So what will the AM’s programme do if not perpetuate the myth of a lack of able, participating women in various arena, this time highlighting literature? If he is considering the past tense....invented Scotland....I just might have to acknowledge that yes, womens' contributions were more prolific and more to the fore, more tripping off the tongue and book shelves in the last century:  

Miss Jean Brodie. Jessie Kesson. OK, don’t all shout out at once..one’s a title, one’s an author…I know. But Liz Lochhead: she kept her head!, Janice Galloway, Ali Smith, A L Kennedy …see, initials only!

We’ve got a referendum coming up, we’re reinventing ourselves, our Scotland, all the time, 
So if it the men who invented Scotland, I hope we can find time to remember the women who’ve been ignored, passed over, forgotten, airbrushed out of .......our story…….


And just in case you’d like to consider some earlier writers, try….

Nobody's Story: The Vanishing Acts of Women Writers in the Marketplace, 1670 ...1820 ..By Catherine Gallagher.

Don’t be surprised if it’s not on a book shop bookshelf ..probably out of print!


Wednesday 2 October 2013

2nd october and normal service is being resumed......



2nd October…and normal service is being resumed……



A bit of a tussle with NHS 24 http://www.nhs24.com/ and our local surgery, but the staff at the Western General Hospital, Edinburgh were superb. http://www.nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk/ , so thank you staff for wonderful treatment, pre & post op.



I’d like to say…well, it’s been quiet then and I haven’t missed much…but it’s been a roaring time.

The referendum debate is far from stagnating, dull and boring, well at least my way it isn’t. http://www.scotreferendum.com/  
OK my hands are up and I admit it. That’s the Scottish Govt website, so let me find one from the Better Together Campaign, or the No Vote as it is more commonly called. http://bettertogether.net/


There, I feel better now. Balanced and even, just like the BBC  which is of course taking flack as ever. http://drderekbateman.wordpress.com/  


But where are we with this debate? This referendum, this…the future of Scotland? 
I think the good news is…all over the place, literally, or rather, geographically. September 18th, last month, kick off unofficially, with one year to go saw local debates being held all over Scotland, BBC coverage coming from up north, arts in a future Scotland, young first time voter..all coming forward, all voicing and listening. 
So even if pundits are heard saying it’s a non event, that’s definitely not the case.



What seems to a non-event though is a debate between the UK Prime Minister (do I really need to put an e link here?) and Scotland’s First Minister. (copy that last question…oh, ok.. ….do I really need to put an e link here? )

Cameron has announced he will not be debating with Salmond. 
Instead, he put forward Alistair Darling. ( I think he might need an e link http://bettertogether.net ).



I can accept some form of argument that this is for Scots to decide about Scotland’s future, but as the PM of my country, I would like to hear what Cameron as PM, believes my future is within the UK. Surely something as important as that should not be left to the head of a campaign, albeit a good MP such as Darling.


And if people mistakenly say that the Yes Campaign is purely a SNP campaign , then equally the No Campaign is not a Labour campaign. 
But why is Labour standing there fronting with the Scottish Tory party and the Lib Dems?

There’s  Labour for Independence, there are pro independence rallies and marches, but where’s that street savvy, public, in your face, on the corner involvement coming from the Better Together Campaign? 

Is it true that will be avoided, especially marches & rallies since those might attract EDL & SDL,  very pro unionist? 
Presumably UKip  won’t be rushing up here again in the near future, and before you ask…I don’t clean behind the fridge. 
Equally, I won’t be providing an e link to those three!



But the stooshie and on-going storm surely has to be the run -away slurs coming from the Daily Mail regarding the late Miliband, Ralph, father of the Miliband brothers.  



Ed Miliband has accused the Daily Mail of lying about his father after the newspaper headlined an article about him as "The man who hated Britain".    http://www.bbc.co.uk/



Labour has demanded an apology from the Daily Mail after the newspaper said…. 
 using a picture of the grave of Ed Miliband's father was an "error of judgement"…..according to Sky at approx. 11.00am today 2nd October. http://news.sky.com/
 

The Mail is headed up by Mr Steafel, (will he succeed the previous, Mr Dacre? Possibly this will re-enforce his credentials) and is quoted as saying  that the late Ralph Milliband was:


"very antipathetic" to the views and values of many British people.

"His views on British institutions from our schools to our royal family to our military to our universities to the church to our great newspapers ... those things were bad aspects, were unfortunate aspects of British life".


And the antecedents of the Mail? 


Well, The Daily Mail was devised by Alfred Harmsworth (later Lord Northcliffe) and his brother Harold (later Lord Rothermere), and was first published on 4 May 1896.


The Daily Mail published (25 October 1924) the forged Zinoviev letter, which indicated that British Communists were planning violent revolution. 
It is claimed by some that this was a significant factor in the defeat of Ramsay MacDonald's Labour Party in the 1924 general election, which by co-incidence was held just four days later. Historians and political analysts tend to disagree however.


From 1923, Lord Rothermere and the Daily Mail formed an alliance with the other great press baron, Lord Beaverbrook.


But if we focus on Rothermere himself, he had some interesting correspondence with Hitler in 1938, post Sudetenland and the annexation of Czechoslovakia.


And the antecedents of Ralph Miliband?


He wasn’t on writing terms with Hitler, more fighting terms. During WW2 Ralph Miliband, a Jewish refugee who had fled to Britain to escape the Nazis served in the Royal Navy.

As an academic yes, he voiced opinions, made comments. But that doesn't mean he 'hated Britain'. 
I failed Tebbit's cricket test, which doesn't make me anti cricket, nor anti English.

I would assume that E Miliband has his own values and visions which have been influenced by many factors: social economic, political and personal, thus including his father.


Well, I know which paper I haven’t bought for many, many years and won’t consider buying  in the future. 
I have no hesitation then in sharing an article, not from the Mail.....