Burning Questions

Hi folks. It's been a while since last I wrote, and there are many topics on my mind for the next few Histbusters. But today I am feeling very contemporary, so I thought I'd answer a couple of myths currently doing the rounds...

1. Is Barack Obama a Muslim?

This isn't even a real question. All the shock jocks in the US are implying it is true, as though the implication that you are of the Islamic faith is some sort of badge of shame. The true answer - it doesn't matter one iota.

Sadly, Barack seems to think it does. His official website for denying untrue rumours about him, states quite plainly:

"Barack Obama is a committed Christian, not a Muslim." (Their emphasis)

Just to sate your curiosity - because we are all dying to know just where he got that interesting name: 'Barack' was his dad's name; 'Hussein' was his grandfather's name; his dad was 'atheist' according to Obama (although he would say that, for electability purposes, but again, does it matter?); his mum's side were strict Protestants; he discovered Christianity in the 80s, and has been a devotee ever since.

However...one, perhaps more interesting myth...

2. Did Barack Obama attend a madrassa (religious college) when he lived in Indonesia?

I didn't even know that Barack had lived in Indo until the other night. I knew all the other stuff - Kenyan dad, white mum, grew up in Hawai'i, befriended terrorists, desires the forcible takeover of the US government by the faithful martyrs of Allah - but the Indonesian link had passed me by. And apparently, those very same shock jocks who keep going on about Obama forging his birth certificate, and being a closet Islamist, have been telling their listeners all about his attendance at a devout Islamic school, of the type frequented by the Bali bombers or the Taliban.

According to Newsweek, and various other journals, this is patent bollocks. During his five years there, he attended a Catholic school, then a public primary school, where religion was taught once a week. Of course, being a Muslim country, this would have been the basics on Islam.

That's enough Obama. One final question from this week's news...

3. Is Kim Jong-Il dead?

Apparently, the Dear leader is on his deathbed, or completely well, or has been dead for ages. That's the best I can come up with from scanning the web for info on this crazy character.

We all know that someone thinks they saw his son maybe contact a French doctor who has perhaps gone to Pyongyang, where possibly he is treating the leader for a mystery illness.

We have also recently heard that he groomed four lookalikes to impersonate him in public, for fear of an assassination attempt, and that, since his death in 2003, one of these has stood in for him.

Plus we know that he hasn't been seen in public for a couple of months.

So is he dead?

First, the idea that he has been replaced by an impersonator is pure, deluded, spybook fantasy. Discount it immediately.

And the fact that he could have died, but the world has not found out? Again, far from possible, in this day and age. There would be someone in North Korea with something to gain from such information leaking out. If any world leader dies today, we will all know tomorrow. That goes equally for Kim Jong-Il. Just because he is a crackpot, doesn't mean his nation believes it can't go on without him. They managed well enough after the death of his infinitely more popular and indispensable father, Kim Il-Sung, back in 1994.

When Kim finally kicks the bucket, this is what will happen: an announcement will be made, a grotesquely massive funeral service will be held, some general will be promoted to President, and Kim will recieve the same accolade as his dear, dead, dad:

"Eternal President of the Republic (2)"

Financial Crisis Schimancial Crisis

I was just watching Kevin Rudd on the telly. He told me that this was the worst financial crisis in a lifetime. Mine or his, I don't know, but I suspect he meant the worst in a long time.

A guy worth $60million, telling me the economy is a mess.

Bugger off.

This event will not touch him, except in his capacity as Prime Minister. The crisis will come and go. He will glide through, politically. Or he may be voted out. That is still two years away. Whatever.

He will still be a rich bastard in 2010, or 2012, or whenever. Fluctuations mean nothing to a man of his wealth. Even if his personal wealth 'collapses' to 2 million bucks, he' s still a rich bastard.

Companies and banks collapse, and here are national governments, propping up these gambling, risk-taking bastards.

"Oh, please help me, I only got a $35 million bonus last year, and I need $2 billion to bail out my failing investments".

You can bugger off rich boy. You gambled other people's money, and you lost.

If I borrowed $50 from my mates, stuck it in a pokie machine, and then lost it, I would be rightly labelled a 'loser'. You are called an investor, and then handed lots of tax payers money (you know, the money you don't like to pay?) to correct your dodgy calculations.

If the US government gave a trillion dollars to homeless people, it would be hounded from office. It hands it over to rich bankers, and we're all supposed to bloody cheer because we're being 'saved' from the 'crisis'.

Vive la capitalisme.

What is wrong with this world??

What's in a name?

Macedonia. I often find myself thinking about this small, landlocked, hilly Balkan nation. Which probably tells you something about me, but there is actually a reason for my Maco-ponderings. You see, this 15-year old country still labours under the rather unwieldy label of 'The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia', or FYROM for you abbreviation buffs.

Now, apart from making Macedonia sound like the international affairs version of the Artist Formerly Known as Prince, this is a mightily intriguing name, and one which I have finally looked into.

I always presumed that FYROM (as I shall now call it, to avoid any ugly diplomatic disputes) had adopted its strange nomenclature to keep the former Yugoslavia (i.e. Serbia) happy, and make for an easier transition to its own independence. That is, a bunch of Very Important Balkan People got together, and the Macos said, 'Look, Serbia, we don't want to annoy you, but we'd love to leave the federation, so how about we do so, but keep Yugoslavia in our name, so we don't look like we can't stand being in the same room with you?'

But that's not it. The truth is rather more interesting, if indeed you are interested in such hot topics as How Countries Got Their Names.

No, the country that has the shits in this matter is Greece. They have their own province called Macedonia (well, Μακεδονία actually), which is culturally, ethnically and linguistically Macedonian. And, as we know, their Macedonia has a proud history reaching back to before Alexander the Great.

They object to FYROM (or Македонија, as the FYROM-ers call it) using the name without a geographical qualifier. The dispute has continued since the early 90s, and no solution is yet in sight. Greece refuses to recognise any permanent name that mentions 'Macedonia'; FYROM refuses to drop the word.

It has actually led to some fairly amusing diplomatic gyrations. In their discussions, the two countries have been referred to officially as 'the Party of the First Part' and 'the Party of the Second Part', simply to avoid Greece having to call its neighbour 'Macedonia'.

Greece has suggested some alternative titles: Vardar Republic, and Republic of Skopje, are two of them. However, if you translate them to their Australian equivalents - Murray-Darling Republic, or Republic of Canberra, you can see why the FYROM might be opposed.

Possible compromise ideas include: New Macedonia, Upper Macedonia, Slavo-Macedonia, Nova Makedonija, and Macedonia (Skopje). All pretty innocuous, but still Greece is opposed to the use of the 'M' word.

It's all completely mad when one thinks about it. Greece (with a Macedonian minority of less than 1%, whose historical heyday was over two millennia ago) is upset that a country which is 65% Macedonian, is trying to call itself Macedonia.

Everybody knows that FYROM is actually Macedonia. Greece is fooling nobody. So what if Alexander the Great came from the Greek part? That was 2300 bloody years ago.

My advice? Let's all drop the FYRO, and call a Balkan republic a Balkan republic. And Greece, take your bloody hand off it.

Pax Burgerana

There has been a myth doing the rounds since the late 1990s, which links the location of wars around the world to the availability of greasy American franchised burgers.

The line goes like this: there have been no wars between any two countries which both have a McDonalds restaurant at the time of the conflict.

It's called the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention.

The rationale being that, once a country is stable, 'sophisticated', capitalist, and 'western' enough to support a Maccas, it will refrain from the silliness of war.

Pure, unadulterated, pro-American bollocks.

I encountered this urban legend again today, when a letter to the editor in the Sydney Morning Herald pointed out that the recent Georgia-Russia war was the first two-Maccas conflict.

I couldn't quite believe this was true, so I looked into some recent wars, and then looked at whether they both had a McDonalds at the time they were kicking the shit out of each other.

Here's the results. I have given the year of the war, followed by the two nations, with the years that they got their first Maccas in brackets. I think you'll agree that all of the following count as wars.

2008: Russia (1990) and Georgia (1999)
2006: Israel (1993) and Lebanon (1998)
1999: India (1996) and Pakistan (1998)
1999: Serbia (1988) and USA/NATO (1940)
1989: USA (1940) and Panama (1971)

Big Macs don't stop wars, I'm afraid.

I wonder when we'll have our first war instigated by McDonalds? The Great Hamburger War of 2044 will be a whopper, I'm sure. Sorry, bad pun.

Farewell Perv

Just a quick one today. News is hitting the world today that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has thrown in the towel, resigning to avoid inevitable impeachment and possible imprisonment.

The myth has arisen that this guy is some sort of quasi-democrat, a friend of the West and a saviour of freedom in Pakistan, who has been essential in the fight against terrorism. He has been committed to helping us against the evil-doers, and is therefore welcome into our 'club' of acceptable leaders.

Utter shite. The man was a military dictator who trampled on the few freedoms left to ordinary Pakistanis. He dismantled democracy when it didn't work for him, and has overseen his country's descent into near- civil war.

Good riddance to the Perv, I say. Enjoy Saudi Arabia.

I Am A Jam Doughnut

“All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."

So said our mate John F. Kennedy, at the height of the Cold War back in June 1963, to an adoring crowd of Berliners. Obviously, he was telling them he was one of them. But did he actually make a gigantic gaffe, and tell them all that he was a jam doughnut?

This is one of those historical tidbits that has become accepted fact. I even tell my kids at school all about JFK and his oratorical faux pas.

The story goes like this: Berliner, rather than being the German word for ‘person from Berlin’, actually means, ‘jam-filled pastry from Berlin’ (in much the same way as a Wiener is a sausage from Vienna, or a frankfurter is a sausage from Frankfurt). Kennedy’s crowd being almost solely German, they would have instantly picked up on his mistake, and found his assertion ridiculous, embarrassing, and funny.

It all makes for a great laugh. The sad thing is, it’s not true. Bugger.

He definitely said it. And he got it spot-on.

A Berliner is, indeed, a pastry from Berlin. But only to Germans who come from outside of Berlin. Berliners call their jam doughnuts pfannkuchen (pancakes).

The problem for scholars of German, is Kennedy’s use of the indefinite article ein (a). A true Berlin citizen would have said, ‘Ich bin Berliner”, without the ein. By using ein, he was implying that he was a non-human Berliner, and therefore a doughnut.

However, as a non-citizen of the city, expressing his figurative solidarity with its people, the use of ein was necessary. Being a US President with a strong Boston accent, he was most evidently not a true Berliner. By using ein, he was sort of saying, ‘I am an American who identifies with the struggles of the people of Berlin’.

Kennedy did make the phrase up at the last minute, and inserted it twice into his landmark speech, in the newly-divided city. But he ran it past his official interpreter, and practised it (in front of Germans) in the office of then Mayor Willy Brandt.

So where did the myth come from? It seems that it didn’t really take off until 20 years after the speech, when the incident was mentioned in Len Deighton’s spy thriller, Berlin Game. The story’s protagonist, Bernard Samson, refers to the jam doughnut gaffe as follows:

“'Ich bin ein Berliner,' I said. It was a joke. A Berliner is a doughnut. The day after President Kennedy made his famous proclamation, Berlin cartoonists had a field day with talking doughnuts.”

A couple of book reviews then mentioned the story, and all of a sudden, it became gospel fact.

Now, god knows where Deighton got the idea from, but he has gone on the record as saying that the character of Bernard Samson is prone to exaggerate and joke, and not everything he says should be taken seriously. So it could be an example of the playful Deighton sparking off an urban legend, via the playful character of Bernard Samson.

Wherever the myth is from, I can tell you one thing: I am mightily annoyed at finding out that JFK didn’t stuff up, because it means I have one less slightly-interesting anecdote to bore my Year 12 kids with. Damn.

Ich bin disappointed.

Flying the Coup

Ah, Africa. Another day, another illegal seizure of power. The news is just coming through that there has been a coup in Mauritania, with the President taken hostage and whisked away to places unknown by the country's leading generals. The news has jarred me a little, seeing as I was in Mauritania a little over a year ago, and I did take quite a shine to this nation of 3 million people and Allah-knows how many camels. Despite being a largely unpopulated expanse of Saharan sand, the country has its fair share of political problems, most stemming from its position on the fault-line between Arab- and sub-Saharan Africa, its recent embrace of fundamentalist Islamic causes, and its sad history as a French colony.

I wish les Maures all the best, and I hope nobody gets hurt in this calamity. Doubtless the dust (or sand) will settle, and the long-suffering population will find themselves under the control of yet another corrupt and unelected leader, and simply get on with the job of surviving. Then, a few years down the track, there will be a push for greater democracy, followed by some flawed elections, then a period of misrule by the new government, and then, to correct the balance...another coup.

Which brings me to my topic for today - coups in Africa. What a stereotype. They have become so cliched in that continent, that now, whenever I see the word 'coup', I instantly presume that it has happened in one of Africa's 53 nations. (Quick digression - why do the French have a word for coup, and we don't, having to use theirs? And why do we use the Spanish word for junta? Surely we can come up with some English alternatives? Suggestions, please...)

Military takeovers do seem to happen a lot in Africa. Or, at least, most people think they do. I am guilty of such presumption, and I was in Africa for ten months last year. I travelled through 20 countries, and didn't see one coup. Admittedly, there was a contested election in Kenya a few months after I was there, but no direct throwing-over of any ruling parties.

So what are the stats? Well, they're actually pretty interesting.

• From 1960 until 2001, there were 191 attempted coups in Africa, or roughly 5 annually. 82 were successful, or about 2 per year. That means each country in Africa has experienced roughly 1.5 coups in the past 40 years. The success rate of coups has declined since the 1960s, but is still at around 40%.
• Europe has had the fewest coups - 18 between 1946-2006, or roughly one every three years. All of those coups were in just 8 countries. Now, the fun part - see if you can name them!
• The Americas was by far the most coup-prone region, in the 1940s and 1950s.
• The five (confirmed) coups since 2000 have been in - Fiji (twice), the Solomons, Thailand, and the Philippines. So it looks like our backyard is the new place to put on a putsch!
• Coups tend to happen where they have happened before - 78% of countries that experienced a coup, actually experienced more than one.
• Sub-Saharan Africa alone has accounted for 44% of the world's coups since 1946. Add on North Africa and the figure shoots up to 55% or so.
• There are now roughly 6 coup attempts worldwide every year (with four of those in Africa). In the 1970s, the world average was 13.
  
• Only three countries in sub-Saharan Africa have never had a coup - and two of them are island nations away from the mainland (Cape Verde, Mauritius, and Botswana)
  
• The world's most coup-prone country? Bolivia, with 22 coups since 1946. The runners-up are Syria (20), Sudan (18), Nigeria (15), Iraq (15) Comoros (13, including three in one year), Benin (12), and Mauritania (12). Well, maybe we should put Mauritania up into joint 6th place now...

So it seems that Africa does get a lot of coups. It has a quarter of the world's nations, most of them independent only since the 1960s, yet it accounts for over half the coups since the 1940s. And even though it is not Number One, it still has 5 nations in the Top Eight.

And why does it happen so much in Africa? Well, there's a topic for another blog...