Mick Hartley

Figure Skating Action

From the Telegraph:

[Photo: Sari Gustafsson / Rex Features]

"Ksenia Stolbova and Fedor Klimov of Russia perform during the pairs free skating event at the European Figure Skating Championships 2012 in Sheffield."

[Hat tip: Damian, Facebook]

Homestead, Pennsylvania, 1910

Homestead Steel Works, Carnegie Steel Co., Pittsburgh:

[Photo: Shorpy/Detroit Publishing Company]

Detail from a spectacular panoramic view at Shorpy, made from four 8x10 inch glass negatives. 

Putting the rubbish out

Hermitage Road, N4:

Building statues

After the death of Kim Jong-il, Pyongyang decreed that not only will the corpse be on permanent display, but that the country will see a flowering of statues of the Dear Leader. But guess who's paying: 

North Korean construction costs incurred through the creation of statues of Kim Jong Il and the eternal tower is a burden to the people, multiple internal sources say. 

Daily NK sources from the Hamgyong Province reported on the 27th, “Here now, in this phase, prior to the construction of towers and cooperative farms, propaganda has established the necessity to devote money toward the construction projects.” “Farm workers are selling emergency food in order to devote funds,” he said. 

On the 12th, authorities of the Central Committee of the Politburo released ‘special coverage’ of the construction of statues of Kim Jong Il and the eternal tower. 

It was expected that the construction of idols would create a nationwide construction boom while displaying a dimension of allegiance to Kim Jong Eun.

Stimulating the economy through the construction of statues glorifying the Kim dynasty? I'm not sure it's quite what Keynes had in mind, but it does have a certain symbolic power as a metaphor for The Greatest Socialist Nation, where the only growth industry is the construction of memorials to dead tyrants.

At the same time, concerns that the government would pass the buck to North Korean residents became realized. 

These sources said “We are required to carry materials such as gravel and other necessary materials through a transport company in Saebyol County, yet because of the price of oil, each household must pay 5,000 won each.” “Residents are reported to raise money through the sale of reserve corn”, he said. 

“The state knows the reality of this situation. It knows not to make decisions like this. It is the blood and sweat of the people.” “If you have been instructed to sell food, there is not much to eat” he said. Complaints such as this have begun to emerge. 

The biggest statue, to be put on display at the Kumsusan Memorial Palace, will be in bronze. That means copper:

Construction costs for the structures were also incurred by the students. Sources say that “The Children of Allegiance Action Plan” demands that each student be responsible for 600g of copper. 

In Saebyol County, a case originated of copper wire theft by a group of junior high school students. Authorities have conducted inspections and investigations are now underway. 

Well at least someone's showing some enterprise.

Wheler Street, Shoreditch

Well, somebody's having fun:

Did I see one and then go to find the other? Of course I did. I'm not daft.

Last week, Old Street.

Little Albert

A famous psychology study from 1920, the Little Albert experiment was an attempt by behaviourist John Watson to show that fear of previously neutral objects could be instilled in very young children by the methods of classical conditioning, ie associating the object - in this case a white rat - with a frightening stimulus, such as a loud noise. It was all part of Watson's more general efforts to prove his theory that babies are born as blank slates, every aspect of whose behaviour is subsequently learned through the process of conditioning.

Well, it worked, apparently. The poor child, a nine-month-old baby, did indeed develop a fear of the rat, and by extension of other furry animals such as rabbits - and even of Watson himself when he appeared in front of him "wearing a Santa Claus mask with white cotton balls as his beard". Well it had to be the cotton balls, obviously. Why else would the child be frightened?

Though you'd have to say here it's more of a "wtf?" than a scream of terror, and Watson - if that is indeed the great man himself - looks more like Krusty the Clown after a heavy night out.

It's not clear whether Watson tried other masks: a werewolf perhaps, making loud blood-curdling yells as he approached, while the child was jabbed repeatedly with a sharp pin. Or maybe that was the next stage if this one didn't work. It's possible that the child developed a terror of pretty much anything. But Watson was happy enough: he'd proved the point to his satisfaction, and somehow never quite got round to de-sensitising little Albert to remove the conditioned fear.

Albert's identity was uncovered with reasonable certainty in 2010 as one Douglas Merritte, the son of an unmarried wet-nurse named Arvilla Merritte who lived and worked at the campus hospital (Johns Hopkins) where the experiment took place, and received $1 for her baby's participation. And was clearly, as a single mother in a low status job, in no position to turn down a request from such a distinguished man of science.

As if all this wasn't sordid enough, new revelations (via) suggest that poor Albert was far from being a normal child anyway. It was known that he died at the age of six from hydrocephalus. Now it turns out that the hydrocephalus was congenital, and even at the age of a few weeks it was noted that the wee lad had problems. He couldn’t see well, and, according to relatives, never learned to walk or talk. Which clearly should have precluded his participation in any research which claimed to have universal application - never mind the grotesque morality of terrifying a handicapped baby as part of a supposedly scientific experiment.

But maybe that's what John Watson wanted. He must have known the child was abnormal. If Albert was a little nearer the blank slate condition than other babies, well, so much the better. Why risk failure? One of the authors of the latest study, Alan Fridlund, concluded that not only did Watson know of Albert’s condition; he intentionally misrepresented it. 

Psychologists, eh? Why is it that so many of the supposed pioneers in the field turn out on closer inspection to be generally dubious characters, prone to taking shortcuts and manipulating data? - or, in other words, charlatans? At the other end of the psychological spectrum from Watson in terms of theory, Freud was notable for his self-aggrandising and cavalier way with the facts, while here in the UK we had the unedifying spectacle of Sir Cyril Burt, one of the leading pioneers in the field, being accused of fabricating data to support his theories on the inheritance of intelligence. The list could go on...

Someone should do some research on it.

Tough Rats

"Think you're hard, do you? Come on then, you bastards..."

[Photo © Vincent J Musi.]

Rats specially bred for their aggression. Scientists in Novosibirsk, Russia, are comparing them to rats bred for friendliness, to understand the connection between genetics and behaviour.

From PDN. More from photographer Vincent J Musi here.

A form of anti-Islamic racism

The Student Union at the London School of Economics doesn't agree with me (previous post). It believes that "Islamophobia is a form of anti-Islamic racism." And further resolves:

1. To define Islamophobia as “a form of racism expressed through the hatred or fear of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic culture, and the stereotyping, demonisation or harassment of Muslims, including but not limited to portraying Muslims as barbarians or terrorists, or attacking the Qur’an as a manual of hatred”, 

2. To take a firm stance against all Islamophobic incidents at LSE and conduct internal investigations if and when they occur.

The list goes on (pdf).

This was put to the vote at a special meeting on Thursday, called in response to the Jesus and Mo affair: that is, after the LSE Atheist, Secularist and Humanist (ASH) Society, in solidarity with their colleagues at University College, put up a Jesus and Mo cartoon on their Facebook page. This was deemed by the LSE Union to be an "Islamophobic incident".

The Union voted for the motion (339 for, 179 against, 24 undecided).

So now, at one of the UK's leading universities - one with a long history of radical political thought - they've decided that Muslims must not be offended since that would be a form of Islamophobia, ie racism, and that Muslims themselves are free to decide what does and what does not offend them. It's reintroducing, in other words, the concept of blasphemy.

Ophelia Benson:

As one of the ASH people said, they went up against a Union whose sole consistent voting bloc consisted of the far left and Islamic societies. It’s impressive that they got 179 votes against.

I would just add: it’s strange that it’s the “far left” that votes this way, because there is nothing far left about Islamism. It’s as if the far left were voting for fascism…rather as the Stalinist “left” did at the time of the Nazi-Soviet pact.

Well, by now that's a familiar story.

See also The Ministry of Truth:

So, they’re creating their own definition of Islamaphobia and stating that anything that has the ‘effect’ of being Islamophobic will not be tolerated.

So who gets to decide what does, and doesn’t have the ‘effect’ of being Islamophobic?

What’s the test that the Student Union will apply in such cases?

The use of  word ‘effect’ rather seems to imply that they’re thinking in terms of purely subjective test based solely on whether something offends Muslim students, giving them a license to censor any and all criticism that might be directed toward Islam.

It’s bullshit.

Islamophobia revisited

Sarah AB at Harry's Place has a post on Anti-Muslim Bigotry vs. Islamophobia. Basically she's treating the two terms as pretty much interchangeable, and wondering where one shades into the other, and which might be the more appropriate usage. She herself, she makes clear, is quite happy with the term Islamophobia, but is aware that others aren't.

Well...it seems to me that the most important distinction here is altogether missing. The reason people object to the term Islamophobia is because it conflates two separate issues: prejudice against Muslims and criticism of Islam. Prejudice against Muslims - that is, anti-Muslim bigotry - should be condemned. No one should be discriminated against (within reason) because of their beliefs. Criticism of Islam, on the other hand, is entirely acceptable: indeed given Islam's record of misogyny homophobia and intolerance it should be just about obligatory for anyone who thinks of themselves as liberal.

I've been here before:

A fundamental principle of Western thought is the separation between a person and their beliefs. This is not a fundamental principle of Islamic thought. Quite the contrary: born a Muslim, you die a Muslim. The notion that you might change your mind is so alien that the punishment for apostasy - in theory, if not necessarily in practice - is death.

The charge of Islamophobia deliberately obscures that separation between a person and their beliefs. It accepts the Islamic vision of an immutable union of person and religion. We should refuse to accept those terms. A person's ethnic origins may be Pakistani, Arab, Kurd, European, whatever, and to criticise or abuse them for that is racist and unacceptable. Their beliefs, whether in Islam, Scientology, UFOs, or any other ideology, creed or cult, is an entirely different matter, and should be open to criticism, debate, scepticism, up to and including ridicule. That's the way we do it, and that's what we should be defending. Worship who or what you want, wear what you want, think what you want, but don't expect to be spared from being offended by the opinions and beliefs of others. The charge of Islamophobia is, precisely, an attempt to make criticism of Islam illegitimate - and that attempt should be resisted. We should be free to criticise Islam just as we criticise Christianity, socialism, capitalism, or any other system of beliefs.

The fact that the most well-known Islamic apostate, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is under constant police protection, that Ibn Warraq, author of "Why I am Not a Muslim", has to write under a pseudonym, and that cartoons of Mohammed still attract death threats and Facebook bans, suggests how far we still have to go. The aim should be, at least for those Muslims resident in the West, that they feel as free to abandon the faith of their parents (or not to, of course) as Christians, atheists, and all the rest of us are free now to make our own choices. As long as Islamophobia is accepted as a legitimate term of criticism, we won't start making any progress.

That was written in 2010. Recent events only reinforce the point.

Maryam Namazie is good on this. Ophelia Benson at Butterflies and Wheels also has a couple of recent posts that are well worth reading.

Update: Terry Sanderson of the NSS on the same theme.

She's Alright

Short but oh so sweet - Jackie Wilson shows his gospel roots:

Previously:

A glorious voice, and a great dancer. It's quite a legacy: probably the major influence on both James Brown and Michael Jackson. Maybe Elvis as well, though Wilson was refreshingly honest about the influence sometimes going the other way: "A lot of people have accused Elvis of stealing the black man’s music, when in fact, almost every black solo entertainer copied his stage mannerisms from Elvis.” A tragic end - a heart attack on stage in 1975, at the age of only 41, followed by nine years in a coma before dying in 1984 - by which time he was largely forgotten.

With a later generation of black performers converting to Islam, it's interesting that Jackie Wilson was, according to his Wiki entry, a convert to Judaism.

Also:

Reet Petite, the original, and a great version by South Londoner Si Cranstoun.

Lonely Teardrops, on Dick Clark's American Bandstand.

Higher and Higher, in colour, plus an interesting remix. And Si Cranstoun again, live from Bromley.

City Basin, Islington

...with the Shard in the distance, to the right of one of the Barbican towers:

In the centre St Luke's Old Street, now used by the London Symphony Orchestra, with Hawksmoor's extraordinary obelisk spire.

Christ on Primrose Hill

Apparently the Brazilians are planning to erect a 20-ft replica of Rio's famous Christ the Redeemer statue on top of Primrose Hill at the end of the Olympics this summer, to celebrate the handing over of the Olympic flame from London to Rio.

It was meant to be a secret but news has leaked out, and residents are not best pleased:

Friends of Primrose Hill chairman Malcolm Kafetz told the Camden New Journal: "I do not see why it should go there. It does not represent anything of England or Primrose Hill. Primrose Hill is a place for people to go and enjoy the view."

Indeed. It seems much too bombastic for a place where, traditionally, generations of drunk or stoned Londoners have staggered up in the early hours in the usually forlorn hope of seeing the sun rise over the capital. And poor Friedrich Engels, whose old house at the bottom of the hill would be overlooked by this monstrosity, will be turning in his grave. 

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society:

The Olympic Games is supposed to unite people of all creeds and cultures through sport. Introducing something as blatantly sectarian as this would completely go against the spirit of the games and be a kind of triumphalist statement about Christianity. It is a very bad idea and must be kicked into touch immediately.

Strong words. More typically British, I think, is the response of local councillor Chris Naylor, who said he wasn't sure a 20ft statue of Christ with his arms outstretched was quite what the area needed.

If they're going to give us a present, the Brazilians, there must be another way: a samba carnival at the Olympic site, perhaps, or a free Gilberto Gil CD to every Londoner. Well, almost anything would be better than this. 

The First Leader

For North Koreans the Great Leader, Kim Il-Sung, was the sole architect of the Greatest Socialist Country. According to NK expert Andrei Lankov though - betraying perhaps just a hint of Russian chauvinism -  the most influential leader in those formative years after the Second World War was in fact a Stalinist apparatchik called Terenti Shtykov:

Few people in the Korea of the late 1940s would recognize his name. For all practical purposes he was the supreme ruler of North Korea in everything but name. It was under his tutelage that Kim Il-sung’s system was born.

He was an archetypical Stalin’s man: a ruthless, cautious, and hard-working autodidact who combined the vestiges of revolutionary idealism with cunning, shrewdness and efficiency....

Shtykov spent most of the war years in Leningrad where he was a political commissar to different “fronts,” that is, groups of armies. By the end of the war he had become colonel general, the highest rank then available for a political officer. 

In summer 1945 he arrived in the Far East where he became a political commissar to the first Far Eastern front, expecting to fight the Japanese in Korea. This appointment essentially determined his fate for the next five years — probably the most important years in his life.

By late 1945 Shtykov had become the undisputed manager of Korean affairs. He enjoyed direct access to Stalin, whom he met a number of times to discuss Korean affairs. Somewhat surprisingly for somebody of his position, Shtykov held a detailed diary which eventually became an important source for students of Korean history (and also a testimony of his own sharp, practical but somewhat cynical mind).

For all practical purposes for the period 1945-1948 he was the Soviet governor of the North. Suffice to say, that even the results of the North Korean elections were drawn up in advance by Shtykov and his fellow Soviet generals, with no Koreans present. The generals decided how many seats should be allocated to each party, and even determined how many women, workers, and farmers should be elected (needless to say, the voters’ wishes miraculously coincided with the calculations of the Soviet generals!).

One should not be so surprised by such excessive attention to detail. This was a time when North Korea was under Soviet control up to the minutest detail. Suffice to say, even the North Korean constitution was edited by Stalin himself and became law of the land only after a lengthy discussion in Moscow, where Shytkov and Stalin sat together looking through the draft of the country’s future supreme law. They approved it, but not completely, since some articles were rewritten by Soviet supervisors. So Shytkov, together with Stalin himself, can be seen as the authors of the North Korean constitution.

He also played a decisive role in the 1946 land reform, arguably the most popular of all the actions ever undertaken by the nascent North Korean regime. The present author is not amused when he reads the writings of South Korean left-wing historians who tend to describe North Korean land reform in great detail and usually attribute it to Kim Il-sung and Korean communists. Soviet military documents, long declassified and published, make a joke of this statement. From beginning to end, the 1946 land reform was planned and prepared by the Soviet military. It is often said that Kim Il-sung “gave the land to the North Korean farmers.” This is factually untrue. It was Shytkov, not Kim Il-sung, who destroyed the established privileges of the landowners of the Northern half of the Korean Peninsula and made the farmers there masters of their land.

With the exception of Japanese colonial politicians, no other foreigner has ever made such an impact on Korea’s destiny as Shytkov. Even though, this role will probably never be recognized by Koreans themselves, largely due to the complexities of Korea’s ideological politics and nationalist worldview. Shytkov was the actual architect of the North Korean state as it emerged in 1945-50. His individual imprint might have been small, since he implemented a fairly standard Soviet policy for that era. Nonetheless, the results of his actions were tremendous.

Shtykov went on to back the North's invasion of the South in 1950; a debacle which led to his fall from power. 

I originally read Shtykov as Shytkov. It's just too tempting. I see Lankov (or his editor) has been unable to resist the temptation either. Despite his best intentions quite a few Shytkov's have crept in there.

On the road to Tottenham

A dull steel-grey day which sees our hero head down to the Lea...

Punished in the name of the people

At the moment I'm unable to access the Daily NK site: my browser, Google Chrome, comes up with a warning message: 

Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site. Google has found malicious software may be installed onto your computer if you proceed....

Which is a shame, because the Daily NK, with its network of informants within North Korea, is an excellent source for the kind of news that you simply don't get anywhere else. The same thing happened a year or so ago, then stopped after a few weeks as suddenly as it started. I haven't tried a different browser because - well, I assume there's some reason for those warnings, and I'm not about to take the risk. It may be a little over-dramatic to wonder if this is some North Korean-instigated cyber attack, but who knows.

Anyway, here at One Free Korea, without having to go to the Daily NK itself, is one of their latest reports from inside the beast - on the murder of a secret policeman and other officials:

A source in North Hamgyung Province told Daily NK on January 19, “During the mourning period, one official from the provincial NSA, one from the prosecutor’s office and two from the People’s Safety Agency were murdered in Cheongjin.” The source added, “There was a note found lying next to the body of the executed NSA official which said ‘Punished in the name of the people.’”

North Korean authorities have not released the identities of the victims or any information about the case fearing public disturbances, but authorities are said to be using all resources at their disposal to find the people responsible. The Defense Security Command is helping the other three agencies with the investigation, while a report on the murders has been elevated to the Central Party in Pyongyang.

In December 2010, also in Cheongjin, the retired head of the PSA office in the Sunam district died after being attacked on the street by an unknown assailant. This however is the first time that active serving officers have been slain. The likelihood seems to be that the murders were planned by somebody with a political motive rather than a personal grudge.

The source revealed that bureaucrats in North Hamgyung Province are shocked by the incident. “On the outside they’re furious, saying they’re going to track down the person responsible and torture them, but at the same time they don’t seem to know what to do.”

“The fact that privileged officials were killed right under the government’s noses, and while there were special patrols in place for the mourning period, means that the lower down the hierarchy you look bureaucrats are more anxious,” the source said.

The reaction from citizens who are aware of the incident is mostly positive, with some saying ‘they deserved it’, although such encouragement is tempered by concerns that this case will lead to even more stringent controls on the public. There are even rumors spreading that it may have been perpetrated by members of the military, given the bold nature of the crime and the skills required to carry it out.

By members of the military, after all the attention the Supreme Commander's lavished on them? Surely not.

Update: no warnings this morning (Thursday the 26th) when accessing the Daily NK. Here's the original article.