Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Breakfast in the Ruins, a question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Governor of Rowe Island
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael Moorcock
    We used to say Margaret Thatcher was taking us back to Victorian times.
    Sadly, the momentum took us a lot further back. We now appear to be in the most cynical period of the Middle Ages.
    You're reference to the Middle Ages is a pertinent one, because anti-Semitic feeling seems to be rearing its ugly head again, at least in this country. It seems to be okay to voice these views with no fear of censure, and the government has recently joined in by portraying the (Jewish) leader of the opposition as the head on a flying pig in a recent campaign poster. If it was any other race or religion there would be immediate outcry.
    The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, recently likened a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard! And then refused to apologise, saying he had said nothing wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Moorcock
    replied
    We used to say Margaret Thatcher was taking us back to Victorian times.
    Sadly, the momentum took us a lot further back. We now appear to be in the most cynical period of the Middle Ages.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    The idea of admitting--let alone taking responsibility for--a legacy of errors seems unlikely in today's political climate, particularly in the U.S. and U.K.

    Confronting mistakes takes courage. I hope that historians (or talented authors) can someday explain the current lack of courage, so perhaps we can come to terms with the legacy of present events, which is certain to be dark.

    Leave a comment:


  • L'Etranger
    replied
    I was just interest in hearing how people had tucked away this particular period, just like it is interesting to know how much the Belgians feel at ease with the Congo today ... always in mind, of course, that there much nastier times elsewhere .... And to what degree people were/are willing to confront the legacy of errors - to use a very flexible word.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    I think it helped to create a justification for anti-semitism in the generation that lived through the war - I'm basing this on my parents' attitudes. I think that nowadays anti-semitism is still a strong undercurrent, but memory of this has receded in the popular mind, along with that of many other ex-colonial 'little' wars - although it is alluded to much by the 'anti-Zionist' left, whose means of expression, sadly, often echoes Islamicist anti-semitism.

    A friend whose father was posted in Palestine, remembers him describing how the Jews arrived from Europe in all manner of small craft, to be turned away by the British.

    I have great sympathy for the Palestinians, by the way - but Israel is clearly not going to disappear, and somehow the 'two state solution' needs to be worked out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Moorcock
    replied
    Incidentally, one of the differences was that the Zionists tended to give warnings of planted bombs, like the IRA and the Basque bombers, whereas later groups are actually out to draw blood rather than use the bomb, as it were, as part of the political process. Another reason why all this represents blood-feuding unlike earlier terrorist activity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Moorcock
    replied
    I think it's probably hazy to most people who weren't engaged with it at the time or who aren't curious about it now. Older journalists still tend to refer to it, especially if they are holding the likes of Sharon to account. There's no doubt that the situation was bad from the very beginning and that fighting between Jews and Arabs went on all the time with intense savagery on both sides, in the manner of most blood feuds. Efforts were made, chiefly by Jewish politicians, to raise the argument above the level of the blood feud but I believe when Reagan came to power and began casually using the language of the cowboy story -- in other words the blood feud -- things began to go downhill. Bush has the same attitude. It's very primitive and so much at odds with the idealism of American's founders that I sometimes can't believe what I'm hearing.

    Leave a comment:


  • L'Etranger
    started a topic Breakfast in the Ruins, a question

    Breakfast in the Ruins, a question

    Mike,
    in this book you tell of Karl Glogauer's growing up (and maturing? I'm not sure ...) in chapters set in various highly dramatic historical moments. The situations are usually emotionally very tense, because of decisions that have to be made by Karl - or are made for him by others, like his mother.
    In one chapter, Nآ°14, about two thirds through the book Karl is a Jewish "terrorist" or "independence fighter" (depending on perspective) in British administrated Palestine. He becomes involved in killing two British soldiers. A very compelling episode.
    I would like to know how this period in which a lot ugly things happened (including the destruction of the King David Hotel) went down in the "collective" memory of people in Britain. Is it still present? Is it a faint, hazy episode "around" the end of the Colonial era? Did it conflict with a general feeling of admiration for the struggle of the Jews to establish and conquer a homestead?
Working...
X