Posts archive for: April, 2008
  • The death of a Princess and the creation of a Godess

    I remember, over 10 years ago, sitting by he computer listening to the saddest song I could find, trying to cry and wondering what was wrong with me that I was no gripped with the same grief seemingly shared by the rest of the nation. I was a pubescent teenager, and obviously any form or peer pressure tore at me and a need to conform was prevalent.

    I look back to this time with pride in myself, and utter embarrassment of the images of Britain in the following days after Princess Diana's death. I cannot help but feel shamed by the flocks of people and sea of flowers in front of Buckingham Palace without feeling sick at the core. Men embracing their weeping partners, old women spending their last bit of pension money on a dead rich corpse, the whole idea seemed utterly surreal and incredibly un-British. The whole hysteria which gripped Britain made it seem that a third of the British population needed to be locked in a mental asylum. A frenzy over the death of someone people had never seen or spoke to or met would probably be seen by most psychologists as a form of madness. I see it as guilt, people who felt a connection with this woman, who read about her every day in the newspapers and was killed when being chased by paparazzi, in a way puts the whole readership of the tabloids to blame for her death.

    With Mohammad Al Fayad's decision to go no further with then inquiry into her death is hopefully an end to the endless media attention of this woman, and every element about her final moments of life, the speeding, drunk driver and her no wearing a seat belt would appear to be conclusive evidence that her death was in no way suspicious. The problem with the media coverage of Diana after her death is the way they have created an image of an almost divine saintly figure, although the truth could not be further from the truth. Tony Blair's unashamedly used her death as a political football, and coining her as 'The People's Princess' is an oxymoron to say the least and sounds like some Victorian slogan for an undemocratic monarchy. It's uncannily close to comment in Monty Python about the Monarchy; "well I didn't vote for you".

    The woman did highlight some important problems of the world, land mines, and who could no be touched by her stroking the arm of a man with Aids. However, the few hours of media attention she brought to these causes is a complete insult to the care workers and activists who slave endlessly for these causes. A five minute photo shoot at a mine clearing site completely overlooks the fact that most of he charity 'work' the Princess did was to attend functions and schmooze at thousand pound ticket parties with a dress costing well over the price it would cost to set up a school in Africa highlights the smoke and mirrors the monarchy in the UK have used to appear useful.

    The people were hoodwinked by politicians and the media to make what the Princess stood for seem like something which was useful, and ironically strengthened the support for the Monarchy. She was born rich and died rich, and none of this was through any intellect or graft on her part. If a man is terminally unemployed in the UK he is forced into work or to do some form of community service, where the Royal Family are principally unemployed dole-scroungers, who or paid for by the people to attend banquets which cost tens of thousands of pounds, in the name of the people.

    Stick the Princess in a council estate and she would be the target of the Daily Mail as a lazy adulteress unemployed bum, but money and family obviously still hold power in the UK today. Her obsession with media attention would probably mean she might be an early Jordan or some Pop Idol contestant who briefly makes it into The Sun and is quickly discarded as a useless fixture of our TV screens and be shown as the spoilt media whore she is. Not the demigod she has been made into.

  • The question of marriage

    Interracial relations are governed according to the social priorities and structure of the said culture. Both the Arab world and Europe have been exposed to different cultural and racial interaction and have both shown a hospitability and hostility to such relationships.

    It needn’t be said that Europe has in the past shown some of the worst sides of humanity in history, in relation to how it has treated different ethnic minorities, such as the Jewish Genocide by Nazi Germany, whilst the Arab world has welcomed waves of Armenians, Circassians and Jews. However, Europe has revised its past horrors and now become home to people of different creeds, races, sexual and political beliefs, many of who fled persecution in their own countries. Different races are completely entwined, with the common belief in European values of humility and tolerance. It’s common to see mixed race relationships, people of all backgrounds cheer on their mixed-race football teams.

    Despite its current unfavourable media-image, the Middle East shares a common principle of hospitality, although one unseen undercurrent is a fear of interracial and inter-sectarian relations, in the non-platonic sense. Although it’s quite acceptable for men to marry between religions and races, women are almost entirely exempt from such an option. Women who defy this often face social-ostracization, or worse, maybe a way of maintaining Arab-male dominance in society. The whole fabric of society is based on keeping this equilibrium, and the emancipation of women in certain areas of legal and political entities has largely failed to create a balance between male and female equality. Women are fully entitled to work, and many do, but the main leaders of industry and commerce remain male. Women may become MPs, but still there are no prominent women Ministers. Women may become lawyers, but there lies a real lack of women in powerful positions in the legal system.

    It would be argued that although not perfect, Europe, due to feminism, Liberalism and Socialism, sees such a position to be inconceivable for Western women and abhorrent to Western values. It would be inconceivable for individuals in Europe to agree with seclusion of women or deny them the right who is their partner, except amongst certain sectors of society and the insane. The whole idea for the liberation of woman, and for them to be well and truly integrated into society is for a country to rid itself of outdated traditions and ideas. A central is the matter of marriage, and too many woman are forced into marriage to husbands who treat them like animals. A person who loses the right to choose their life and partner cedes to appear human, but as a sheep, of whom they have full control of.

    Banish this idea, force through a law which states that couples choosing to marry must have independent witnesses who testify of a unity based purely on love and we have the start of the emancipation of women. Then in careers women will be judged on their brains rather than their breasts, girls will walk the streets without being hounded by slobbering wolves and women can live a life which is true to themselves rather than believe in continue an existence based on deception and lies.

Footer:

The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.