The organic trend

What do Tesco, Ralph Lauren and Bono have in common? The Financial Times gave the answer in the article ‘The cotton wars’ last week: they all sell organic clothing.[1]

Is this a sign of growing consumer awareness, a marketing tool or just another trend? The increasing use of the word organic is questionable. For example, a pair of jeans might be made of organic cotton, but it still contains nylon as well. Most consumers do not care about this. As long as a product is labelled organic, buying it makes them feel good about themselves and usually no further questions are asked.

So the organic wave is definitely a trend that has been picked up by marketing. However, this is not the whole story. As Julie Gilhart, fashion director of Barneys New York argues: “I think it is the beginning of a major shift in consciousness in the fashion business.” Apart from the fashion business, the eco/organic/fair trade shift occurs from clothes to food and as far as holidays. Trend or not, this is good news for the environment. Companies first follow consumer demands, but as soon as it pays of they will do their best to make more consumers follow, often with results. For example, in many countries consumers do not even have the option to buy non-free range eggs anymore.

A complete shift to organic clothes will take a while, though. Only one percent of the cotton on the current global market is organic and it is forecasted to take till 2015 to rise to 10 percent. To contribute to this rise, we will have to follow the trend.

____________________________________________
References
[1] ‘The cotton wars’, in: The Financial Times, 01 March 2007.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, GARY!!!

David and Goliath all over again

For my BA history I researched the coverage of the 1967 Six Day War in Dutch newspapers. In 1967, the religious and atheist Netherlands alike were suffering from an unbearable feeling of guilt regarding the country’s relatively high proportion of deported Jews during the Second World War. Not surprisingly, its media were biased in favour of Israel. Israel was portrait as the victim and the weaker party in the conflict.

It is more surprising, however, that last week’s Economist employed similar rhetoric. The Economist argues that Israel’s Labour Party is willing to give up the West Bank in exchange for peace, while Hamas only vaguely promised to respect international resolutions. On top of that, The Economist mentions not less than three times that Hamas denies Israel’s right to exist.[1]

Of course this is true and I am the last person to support Hamas or not to recognise Israel, but in this context it is essential to mention that Israel does not respect international resolutions either. Thousands of Israelis live in settlements, largely on the West Bank, that are illegal according to UN resolution 55/132.

Besides this, the remark that “the immediate security concerns [that] are always uppermost in Israel’s mind” suggests that home made bus bombs impose a bigger threat than Israel’s US sponsored army. I believe that many Lebanese families can argue the contrary.

Of course a leader is expected to be opinionated, and without metaphors such as ‘David and Goliath’ and ‘the Holy Land’ The Economist’s argument is more subtle than that of the Dutch newspapers in the 1960s. However, the premises in this argument are more biased than the conclusion and exactly this subtlety is worrying.
_________________________________________________________
References
[1] ‘A two-headed monster’, in: The Economist, February 17th-23rd 2007, p.17.

Easy criticism

In my social environment it has always been popular to criticise the United States. It does not go as far as a boycott on McDonalds and Hollywood movies, but certainly beyond the US foreign policy. It is totally acceptable to call Americans retarded farmers, brainless consumers, fat fanatics and to imitate their way of speech. Even though I have never been on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and despite the fact that I have met many intelligent and healthy Americans, I have to admit that I consider this way of thinking as normal.

The reality struck me when I read a review of the book Uncouth Nation: why Europe dislikes America by Andrei S Markovits. Markovits argues that “anti-Americanism is the only face of xenophobia still broadly accepted in Europe.”[1] Even though the reviewer concludes that Markovits’ argument lacks nuance, this is an interesting point. For example, how can the entire United Kingdom be in shock when Jane Goody makes fun of her Indian housemate’s accent, while clearly no one would care a least bit had an American been the target of Jane’s bullying?

A further interesting point Markovits makes is that anti-Americanism is the only thing Europeans have in common and is therefore the main building block of European identity. Anti-Americanism indeed seems to be a premise rather than a conclusion in European debates. Although European anti-Americanism is not always unfounded, it is an easy game to play. With failing attempts to advance the unity reached so far with a constitution, it is about time for Europe to focus its criticism on itself.
___________________________________________________________
References
[1] Mary Fitzgerald, ‘Love to hate you’, in New Statesman, 12 February 2007, p.59.

Between trivialisation and ignorance

Child soldiers as pop-culture icons? Recent movies, such as The Last King of Scotland and Blood Diamond, and music by bands like the Gorillaz and Radiohead indeed suggest that child soldiers have been put under a prominent spotlight in the entertainment industry.

In last week’s Time Magazine Belinda Luscombe expressed her concern that child soldiers will become trivialised. The danger is “cheap, ubiquitous images, dropped in like clip art for a hit of emotion and danger,” she argued.[1]

Ms Luscombe might be right, but the fact that the issue of child soldiers has been put on the international agenda can not be ignored. For example, the first trial of the International Criminal Court will be against Thomas Lubanga, a Congolese rebel leader accused of weaponising children.

The dilemma between trivialisation and mass awareness knows many examples. Journalists may find Michael Moore aggressive and his humour misplaced, but he did advance the debate about the US government and media to a wide public. Many historians agree that Schindler’s List is full of historical flaws, but they have to admit that this movie exposed a broad American audience to the holocaust. The political correct intelligentsia might doubt the motives of artists such as Bob Geldof, Bono, and Madonna, but the truth it that they have drawn more attention to Africa and all its problems.

So what is the greater danger here?

There are an estimated 250,000 child soldiers, mostly in Africa, but still there are many people in the west who don’t know about their existence. If the choice is between trivialisation and ignorance, the first is by far the lesser of two evils. ______________________________________________________
References
[1] Berlinda Luscombe, ‘Pop Culture Finds Lost Boys’, in Time, February 12 2007, pp. 62-64.

Ceci n’est pas une pipe

Most people would agree that what they see here is a pipe. Not René Magritte. By writing the words ‘Ceci n’est pas une pipe’ he challenged people’s common view and forced them to rethink what they easily would have accepted as the truth. And Magritte turned out to be right. The title of this painting, ‘La trahison des images’, explains that what we see is in fact not a pipe, but an image of a pipe.

Magritte would have been a good journalist. He took the obvious not for granted, but used his own common sense to judge the situation. The treason of images, which makes people see things that do not exist, is comparable with the treason of PR. The journalistic equivalents of René Magritte are the men and women who decide not to listen to PR and government propaganda, to go against the status quo and to challenge it with their own investigation of it.

Like Magritte, they often turn out to be right. In the past, alternative journalists have opposed seemingly unchangeable situations, such as the Vietnam War and colonialism. More recently, when a large part of the world believed that the war in Iraq was a good decision, alternative voices such as John Pilger and Michael Moore challenged it and revealed the lies in the Bush administration’s propaganda.

The importance of alternative voices in journalism is evident. What you see is not always what you get.

How music made history

In 1968 a group of Czech musicians formed the band the Plastic People of the Universe, influenced by music such as The Velvet Underground and Frank Zappa.

Another fan of The Velvet Underground was the writer and political activist Václav Havel. He did not underestimate the power of art, and part of his activism consisted of smuggling western LP’s into the country. When he finally met his idol Lou Reed in 1990, he told him that it was thanks to him that he had become Czech president in 1989.

Needless to say, the Czech authorities were no big fan of the Plastic People. After several conflicts, they finally arrested the band in 1977 and put them in prison. This inspired Havel and some others to write the Charta 77, which resulted in a political active group under the same name. All members played an important role in negotiating the 1989 Velvet Revolution. The end of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia got this name because of its non-violent nature, but also with a wink to… exactly: The Velvet Underground.

Václav Havel encouraged the Plastic People of the Universe to get back together, which they did. They still play concerts these days. They even played a concert in London two weeks ago. I discovered this today. Shit. I missed my chance to see music history perform life…

Today my basil plant died.

Happiness

Only the unhistorical person can be truly happy, a wise man once wrote.[1] Being unhistorical means to be able to let go the past and the future completely, to live in and think about the present only.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to be true. Thinking of the happiest moments of my life, I did not realise my happiness until those moments were over. Such a shame. When I think about those moments, I know they are over and I can never relive them.
Thinking about the past has never made me happy, even if it was a happy past.
If I had been conscious of my happiness in the moment of happiness, I probably would have been less happy. Thinking about the moment you’re in instead of living it is never good. Also, knowing that you are happy now makes you realise this cannot last forever. So, also thinking about the future does not make me happy. Even if it’s a happy future –looking forward to something too much usually results in disappointment.

Which makes me wonder if I am happy. I believe I am. That is, in general. I can honestly say that I am generally happy. I am generally happy with my life, my environment, my friends, my family, my past, and I am generally optimistic about my future. Still, moments of true happiness are rare. In the contrary, often I just feel sad. Even though I am generally happy. And when I think of it, I am constantly rethinking past events, thinking about should haves, thinking about future events and conversations in the greatest details. This occupation makes me confused rather than happy, and I know it.

In theory happiness is easy to achieve. All you have to do is let go of the past, don’t expect too much of the future, and enjoy the moment of now as much as you can. So if it is so easy in theory, why is it so incredibly hard? Maybe it is possible to be happy with being sad. Maybe being happy constantly is so unsatisfying that it does not make happy in general.
I just need to find the right balance.

[1] Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1874. Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben : zweite unzeitgemässe Betrachtung.

Two weeks in the Netherlands

Gonny van Oudenallen is an interesting woman. As a member of the Lijst Pim Fortuyn, the right winged populist party we inherited from its in 2002 murdered leader, she was the first person on the list to succeed Margot Kraneveld in the Dutch parliament, after Kraneveld announced to leave the LPF and the parliament immediately. However, the LPF did not wish to include Van Oudenallen, because she has been corrupt in her earlier career. Van Oudenallen did not give up; she decided to claim her place in parliament anyway, with or without the LPF. She started her own party: the group Oudenallen. She knows very well how the system works, in in this case she does not need to go through the normal procedures of starting a party. Not only this, she insisted on getting her place in parliament immediately. Three months before the elections in November of this year. Why? So she has the right on quite some money the coming years.

So Gonny van Oudenallen arrived in parliament. If it was not clear yet she only did this for the money, she made it very clear with her stupidity. She did not recognise ministers and to the leader of the Green Left party, Femke Halsema, she said: "if you like trees and animals. you should move to Australia." Halsema could only laugh in response, although I'm sure she could have cried as well.

Gonny van Oudenallen is corrupt. She did the worst possible job in three months parliament. She only did this for the money. And with all her money, she also manages to hold a social house in Amsterdam. So she is not that unintelligent at all. We all know about this, but we cannot do anything about it. All we can do is pay her....

That is Dutch polics for you!
I had a great time watching all the year overviews on television this christmas holiday. I missed most of it, and seeing it all in a row shows how ridiculous Dutch politics has been... the Prime Minister who was desperate for attention on a skateboard; the minister for justice who made the news with his own rap, (yes, a rap!) one minister who took away Dutch citizenship from another politician, who was forced to move out and lives in America now... like Femke Halsema I could only laugh in response... although I could have cried as well.