Last weekend was an auspicious occasion: 200 young men, half in crimson, half in white, donned some ridiculous padding and made ready for battle. There was tension in the air - clearly a lot of dignity was at stake: Yaleians (?) wore intimidating hats declaring "Harvard sucks!" while Harvardians - ever the more sophisticated of Ivy Leaguers, I'm told - opted for merchandise running with a message of subtle yet biting irony: "FALE". If ever there was a time for handbags, this was most certainly it...
I don't really know what to say other than it was right up there with some of the most ridiculous things I've ever witnessed. Probably because I'm comparing it to rugby - y'know, that sport without the helmets, where people play continuously without stopping every 5-20 seconds for the sake of sorting out a wedgie or performing some chest-bumps? Yeah thats the one, well I'm comparing it to that...
Now I won't do it a total disservice: the half-time entertainment was inspired. This is where the two university orchestras took over - and let me tell you, I nearly wet myself laughing when, after the football players left the field, both brass bands charged at each other from their opposite ends of the field to meet in the middle in the strangest braveheart-does-bandcamp style face-off you've ever seen. Never has a trombone been made to look so intimidating. Yale kept things classy by performing a rendition of that acclaimed hit by Cee Lo Green, while Harvard kept up the battle-theme with a Pirate's of the Caribbean number. Magic. Next we were treated to a bizarre Avatar reenactment (I say bizarre because I haven't seen the film) and a lot of smashing up model-mascots with baseball bats... no biggie.
Anyway, you'l all be pleased to know that the ending was a happy one: Good triumphed over Evil, red conquered white. What a thoroughly ridiculous sport!
Friday, November 26, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
addendum
I totally forgot to mention in my last post that I was also fortunate enough to have dinner with him as well (as the title suggests!) - it was excellent!
Dinner with Thorbjørn Jagland
Yesterday afternoon I happily skipped unwillingly dragged myself away from my research on India's Bharatiya Janata Party to attend this year's Samuel L. and Elizabeth Jodidi lecture delivered by Thorbjørn Jagland to the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.
By means of quick introduction, Jagland was Norway's Prime Minister from 1996-1997, President of the Storting (parliament) from 2005-2009, and is currently both the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Its fair to say that we were pretty lucky to have him... Enough about his past and present titles, though, and onto what he actually had to say.
First of all, I should make clear that it was predominantly in his capacity as chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee that he was speaking, delivering a talk aptly entitled 'Individual Rights - Universal Peace'. Now, if I'm honest, the lecture itself was sort of all over the place: littered with barely relevant (though quite entertaining) anecdotes and quotes, it was really more a verbalisation of his stream of consciousness than anything else. Nonetheless, a handful of interesting things certainly came out of it. For the sake of your patience, though, I'll concentrate on three things (which I'll set out now just in case you suddenly need to rush off and watch some paint dry... its ok, I know how it is) : 1) His justification for awarding Obama the Peace Prize in 2009, 2) Liu Xiaobo's receipt of the award this year, and 3) his notion that human rights stand above national sovereignty. There we go - you've been duly warned!
So onto the first of these issues - Obama getting the prize in 2009. There's nearly always controversy surrounding whoever gets the Peace Prize and 2009 was no exception. However, its probably most instructive to begin by detailing the official criteria according to which the recipient is chosen, as laid out by Alfred Nobel (inventor of dynamite) in his will. By his stipulation, the award should be given 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses'. By the Committee's estimations, Obama - barely 9 months into his presidency - seemed to fit the bill...
On what particular grounds? Two things really: his vision of a world without nuclear weapons and his commitment, as President of the US, to have his country engage in more multilateral diplomacy. At heart, this decision clearly wasn't based on accomplishment - for me, the first 9 months of the Obama administration, consumed almost entirely by domestic issues, were decidedly disappointing from an international relations standpoint - a period of missed opportunities, really. Rather, the decision seemed to amount to more of a plea than a reward - a plea to follow through on that grand rhetoric which aimed to sculpt the figure of C21st-US leadership into a more appropriate and palatable form. Maybe he deserved it, maybe he didn't - for now, I can see both sides of the debate and am content to sit on the fence. Instead, what really interests me is something that the debate nonetheless throws up - the inescapable fact that America is a deeply puzzling place... and I'll come back to that.
Ok so now onto the second issue: Liu Xiaobo, the human rights activist who has been calling for democratic reforms in China and is currently in prison for 'inciting subversion of state power'. For me, this is super interesting: I think I mentioned in a previous post that I'm writing a paper all about China's (or rather, the CCP's) portrayal of itself to the West so this is really hugely relevant for me. What I found quite interesting was the view of a couple of Chinese people in the audience who asked questions, both of which suggested that the award had actually done more harm than good as concerns human rights in China - and in the short term, its hard to disagree. The great firewall has blocked anything with Liu Xiabo's name, while more generally it has served to significantly increase the insecurity of the CCP which only translates into increased repression. China's angry response highlights a couple of things worth noting: first, it reminds us yet again that if there is one thing the CCP hates more than anything, it is challenges to its sovereignty - that is, outside actors meddling in its internal affairs. Second, I think it also shows an acute awareness on the part of the CCP of the long-term influence the decision could have. This is no flash in the pan - the western media (which the Communist Party utterly detests) now has in Liu Xiabo a permanent focal point when it comes to the human rights struggle in China. Whatever he does in the future is guaranteed significant worldwide coverage - and the CCP is going to find that very difficult to deal with.
This issue of China and sovereignty brings me nicely onto my last issue: Jagland's notion that human rights are above sovereignty. Now just to briefly say, Jagland in general is very much for states devolving more and more of their sovereignty to international bodies - for him the C21st is one characterised more than ever by interdependence among states, and as such he really does subscribe to the notion that global values and global rules should have a very prominent place in the way states conduct both internal and external affairs. But not everyone by any means thinks along these lines: China obviously doesn't want to devolve sovereignty to anyone, but we certainly shouldn't kid ourselves that the US is any different. Rhetorically, the US stresses its willingness to adhere to the same rules as everyone else but too often the reality is quite different. To put it another way, the US is quite happy to play a very active role in drawing up international treaties for this that and the next thing and its often even quite happy to sign them. But ratify them? No thank you very much... or when they do ratify them, its usually on the condition that they are 'non-self-executing' (e.g. the Convention Against Torture). What this all comes down to is that when it comes to international law, the US really is no role model. So my point is merely this: Jagland's notion that human rights are above sovereignty is a wonderful ideal. They absolutely should be universal. Unfortunately, though, the reality again falls well short - and not just in China. I can't think of a more basic human right than that to life - and yet, here I am sat in a country in which nearly every state deems this a right humans do not have.
By means of quick introduction, Jagland was Norway's Prime Minister from 1996-1997, President of the Storting (parliament) from 2005-2009, and is currently both the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Its fair to say that we were pretty lucky to have him... Enough about his past and present titles, though, and onto what he actually had to say.
First of all, I should make clear that it was predominantly in his capacity as chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee that he was speaking, delivering a talk aptly entitled 'Individual Rights - Universal Peace'. Now, if I'm honest, the lecture itself was sort of all over the place: littered with barely relevant (though quite entertaining) anecdotes and quotes, it was really more a verbalisation of his stream of consciousness than anything else. Nonetheless, a handful of interesting things certainly came out of it. For the sake of your patience, though, I'll concentrate on three things (which I'll set out now just in case you suddenly need to rush off and watch some paint dry... its ok, I know how it is) : 1) His justification for awarding Obama the Peace Prize in 2009, 2) Liu Xiaobo's receipt of the award this year, and 3) his notion that human rights stand above national sovereignty. There we go - you've been duly warned!
So onto the first of these issues - Obama getting the prize in 2009. There's nearly always controversy surrounding whoever gets the Peace Prize and 2009 was no exception. However, its probably most instructive to begin by detailing the official criteria according to which the recipient is chosen, as laid out by Alfred Nobel (inventor of dynamite) in his will. By his stipulation, the award should be given 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses'. By the Committee's estimations, Obama - barely 9 months into his presidency - seemed to fit the bill...
On what particular grounds? Two things really: his vision of a world without nuclear weapons and his commitment, as President of the US, to have his country engage in more multilateral diplomacy. At heart, this decision clearly wasn't based on accomplishment - for me, the first 9 months of the Obama administration, consumed almost entirely by domestic issues, were decidedly disappointing from an international relations standpoint - a period of missed opportunities, really. Rather, the decision seemed to amount to more of a plea than a reward - a plea to follow through on that grand rhetoric which aimed to sculpt the figure of C21st-US leadership into a more appropriate and palatable form. Maybe he deserved it, maybe he didn't - for now, I can see both sides of the debate and am content to sit on the fence. Instead, what really interests me is something that the debate nonetheless throws up - the inescapable fact that America is a deeply puzzling place... and I'll come back to that.
Ok so now onto the second issue: Liu Xiaobo, the human rights activist who has been calling for democratic reforms in China and is currently in prison for 'inciting subversion of state power'. For me, this is super interesting: I think I mentioned in a previous post that I'm writing a paper all about China's (or rather, the CCP's) portrayal of itself to the West so this is really hugely relevant for me. What I found quite interesting was the view of a couple of Chinese people in the audience who asked questions, both of which suggested that the award had actually done more harm than good as concerns human rights in China - and in the short term, its hard to disagree. The great firewall has blocked anything with Liu Xiabo's name, while more generally it has served to significantly increase the insecurity of the CCP which only translates into increased repression. China's angry response highlights a couple of things worth noting: first, it reminds us yet again that if there is one thing the CCP hates more than anything, it is challenges to its sovereignty - that is, outside actors meddling in its internal affairs. Second, I think it also shows an acute awareness on the part of the CCP of the long-term influence the decision could have. This is no flash in the pan - the western media (which the Communist Party utterly detests) now has in Liu Xiabo a permanent focal point when it comes to the human rights struggle in China. Whatever he does in the future is guaranteed significant worldwide coverage - and the CCP is going to find that very difficult to deal with.
This issue of China and sovereignty brings me nicely onto my last issue: Jagland's notion that human rights are above sovereignty. Now just to briefly say, Jagland in general is very much for states devolving more and more of their sovereignty to international bodies - for him the C21st is one characterised more than ever by interdependence among states, and as such he really does subscribe to the notion that global values and global rules should have a very prominent place in the way states conduct both internal and external affairs. But not everyone by any means thinks along these lines: China obviously doesn't want to devolve sovereignty to anyone, but we certainly shouldn't kid ourselves that the US is any different. Rhetorically, the US stresses its willingness to adhere to the same rules as everyone else but too often the reality is quite different. To put it another way, the US is quite happy to play a very active role in drawing up international treaties for this that and the next thing and its often even quite happy to sign them. But ratify them? No thank you very much... or when they do ratify them, its usually on the condition that they are 'non-self-executing' (e.g. the Convention Against Torture). What this all comes down to is that when it comes to international law, the US really is no role model. So my point is merely this: Jagland's notion that human rights are above sovereignty is a wonderful ideal. They absolutely should be universal. Unfortunately, though, the reality again falls well short - and not just in China. I can't think of a more basic human right than that to life - and yet, here I am sat in a country in which nearly every state deems this a right humans do not have.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Elections? What elections...?
Definitely time for an update.
So its probably not escaped your attention that we've had some midterms over here. Actually, scratch that - it might have. Heck, it nearly escaped my attention and I'm over here!
Its funny, because going through the interviews for getting the fellowship to come here, my answer to the inevitable question of "why do you want to go to the US?" was that - among other reasons - I will get to witness first-hand the midterms - midterms that I, as many other people of course do, hold to be hugely significant. And yet, somehow they managed to come and go almost without me even noticing (except for the annoying campaign adverts that would come on at the start every time I tried to watch amazing videos like this one on YouTube)....
When Obama assumed the presidency, it was a moment marked by an effervescence of promise and hope. However, some observers - determined not to get carried away on a wave of popular sentiment - astutely compared it to the moment that Woodrow Wilson became president many years prior. He too had the hopes of the world bearing down on him yet - as these observers warned - it wasn't long until the reality that one person can only do so much, that change can't happen over night kicked in. And so, history appears to have repeated itself*. The reasons I came up with for these midterms having been so muted - in Boston/Cambridge at least - are twofold.
First, I don't have a TV. If I did, I'm pretty sure this post would be more along the lines of my British sensibilities being offended by American electioneering. Lucky for you I don't have a TV then. Second, and most importantly, I think its because the writing was already on the walls well beforehand. In two senses - in the first, Massachusetts - as a Democrat strong-hold - was never really going to be hugely competitive (though, that said, results were far closer this year than they have been in a really long time). More generally, though, I think it was fairly clear to everyone that this was going to be a massively disappointing verdict from the polls for Obama (after all, midterms are never that good for the incumbents, though admittedly this was worse than usual). There was a sense in which, like Woodrow Wilson before, the man in the White House never stood a chance of living up to the enormous expectations heaped on him. I'm certainly not saying that Obama has achieved nothing, merely that Americans have had a long way to fall from the dizzying heights of optimism that abounded two years ago. Its clear that they are now deeply disillusioned and looking for someone to blame.
Instead of elaborating any further, I'll just point you to an article that I thoroughly recommend on the topic. Apart from the paragraph where it questions the ability of Americans to relate to Obama's race, this article comes closest to capturing my feelings on what this recent round of voting means and can tell us. Its an interesting read...
*Disclaimer: having discovered a previous supervisor now drops in occasionally to check up on my blog I should probably say that, no, I don't believe history truly repeats itself... just a rhetorical flourish, y'know?!
So its probably not escaped your attention that we've had some midterms over here. Actually, scratch that - it might have. Heck, it nearly escaped my attention and I'm over here!
Its funny, because going through the interviews for getting the fellowship to come here, my answer to the inevitable question of "why do you want to go to the US?" was that - among other reasons - I will get to witness first-hand the midterms - midterms that I, as many other people of course do, hold to be hugely significant. And yet, somehow they managed to come and go almost without me even noticing (except for the annoying campaign adverts that would come on at the start every time I tried to watch amazing videos like this one on YouTube)....
When Obama assumed the presidency, it was a moment marked by an effervescence of promise and hope. However, some observers - determined not to get carried away on a wave of popular sentiment - astutely compared it to the moment that Woodrow Wilson became president many years prior. He too had the hopes of the world bearing down on him yet - as these observers warned - it wasn't long until the reality that one person can only do so much, that change can't happen over night kicked in. And so, history appears to have repeated itself*. The reasons I came up with for these midterms having been so muted - in Boston/Cambridge at least - are twofold.
First, I don't have a TV. If I did, I'm pretty sure this post would be more along the lines of my British sensibilities being offended by American electioneering. Lucky for you I don't have a TV then. Second, and most importantly, I think its because the writing was already on the walls well beforehand. In two senses - in the first, Massachusetts - as a Democrat strong-hold - was never really going to be hugely competitive (though, that said, results were far closer this year than they have been in a really long time). More generally, though, I think it was fairly clear to everyone that this was going to be a massively disappointing verdict from the polls for Obama (after all, midterms are never that good for the incumbents, though admittedly this was worse than usual). There was a sense in which, like Woodrow Wilson before, the man in the White House never stood a chance of living up to the enormous expectations heaped on him. I'm certainly not saying that Obama has achieved nothing, merely that Americans have had a long way to fall from the dizzying heights of optimism that abounded two years ago. Its clear that they are now deeply disillusioned and looking for someone to blame.
Instead of elaborating any further, I'll just point you to an article that I thoroughly recommend on the topic. Apart from the paragraph where it questions the ability of Americans to relate to Obama's race, this article comes closest to capturing my feelings on what this recent round of voting means and can tell us. Its an interesting read...
*Disclaimer: having discovered a previous supervisor now drops in occasionally to check up on my blog I should probably say that, no, I don't believe history truly repeats itself... just a rhetorical flourish, y'know?!
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Life is really hard.
As of last week, my levels of sophistication have increased tenfold. 'For why?', you may ask. Well I went clubbing. YACHT clubbing.
It began with a chance email I sent a couple of weeks ago to the master of Caius, Sir Christopher Hum. I'm writing this research paper on China, you see, (all about national image building and public diplomacy as part of Chinese foreign policy, 1989-2010 for those who care...) and thought it might be quite 'cool' (I use the word liberally, of course) to be able to drop in some comments from a former British Ambassador to China. In return, I was rather lucky to receive a last-minute invite to the annual Caius NYC gathering to be held at none other than the New York Yacht Club...
A week later I was boarding my bus and bound for New York! It was a whistle-stop tour to be sure - I was in the city for less than 24 hours - but it was nice to finally make my way to the big apple and see what all the fuss is about. I really thought I wouldn't like New York - I thought it would be too big, too impersonal, too busy, and too superficial. But the very short time I spent there was, by all accounts, highly enjoyable. The reception at the yacht club was phenomenal - the food was to die for and the room we were all congregated in was stunning. Most important, though, I managed to talk to some really fascinating people. What was most striking about the evening, I think, was that here was a room full of ridiculously accomplished people - people who hang out on Wall Street, get invited to the White House - and yet here they were, more than happy to go out of their way to speak to a small-time student - special though I am. It did fill me with a rather warm feeling, a huge sense of privilege at knowing that, while I may have graduated and moved on from Cambridge, you never really leave it behind. As the title of our college magazine so aptly puts it, "Once a Caian, Always a Caian"...
Nostalgia aside, the evening really was brilliant. After drinks, a group of us then went on to have sushi at a restaurant just off 5th Avenue which made me feel truly cosmopolitan! Ah the city that never sleeps.... I could definitely get used to it.
I'll finish by saying that if there's one thing I've come away from the last couple of weeks feeling, its that I'm now - more than ever before - acutely aware of the atomizing forces of modern culture and - well capitalism, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I've always had a sense of it: but with Benjamin in London, myself over here hopping between New York and Boston, and William having just moved to Melbourne, I suppose I feel like I've been well and truly sucked into the trend...
It began with a chance email I sent a couple of weeks ago to the master of Caius, Sir Christopher Hum. I'm writing this research paper on China, you see, (all about national image building and public diplomacy as part of Chinese foreign policy, 1989-2010 for those who care...) and thought it might be quite 'cool' (I use the word liberally, of course) to be able to drop in some comments from a former British Ambassador to China. In return, I was rather lucky to receive a last-minute invite to the annual Caius NYC gathering to be held at none other than the New York Yacht Club...
A week later I was boarding my bus and bound for New York! It was a whistle-stop tour to be sure - I was in the city for less than 24 hours - but it was nice to finally make my way to the big apple and see what all the fuss is about. I really thought I wouldn't like New York - I thought it would be too big, too impersonal, too busy, and too superficial. But the very short time I spent there was, by all accounts, highly enjoyable. The reception at the yacht club was phenomenal - the food was to die for and the room we were all congregated in was stunning. Most important, though, I managed to talk to some really fascinating people. What was most striking about the evening, I think, was that here was a room full of ridiculously accomplished people - people who hang out on Wall Street, get invited to the White House - and yet here they were, more than happy to go out of their way to speak to a small-time student - special though I am. It did fill me with a rather warm feeling, a huge sense of privilege at knowing that, while I may have graduated and moved on from Cambridge, you never really leave it behind. As the title of our college magazine so aptly puts it, "Once a Caian, Always a Caian"...
Nostalgia aside, the evening really was brilliant. After drinks, a group of us then went on to have sushi at a restaurant just off 5th Avenue which made me feel truly cosmopolitan! Ah the city that never sleeps.... I could definitely get used to it.
I'll finish by saying that if there's one thing I've come away from the last couple of weeks feeling, its that I'm now - more than ever before - acutely aware of the atomizing forces of modern culture and - well capitalism, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I've always had a sense of it: but with Benjamin in London, myself over here hopping between New York and Boston, and William having just moved to Melbourne, I suppose I feel like I've been well and truly sucked into the trend...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)