 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
page 1
page2
page3
page4
page5
page6
page7
page8
page9
page10
page11
page12
page13
page14
page15
page16
page17
page18
page19
page20
page21
page22
page23
page24
page25
page26
page27
page28
page29
page30
page31
page32
page33
page34
page35
page36
page37
page38
page39
page40
page41
page42
page43
page44
page45
page46
page 47
page48
page49
page50
page51
page52
page53
page54
page55
page56
page57
page58
page 59
page59
page 60
page61
page62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page66
page67
page 68
page 69
page 70
Page 71
page 72
pare 73
page 74
page 75
page76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page92
page93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page98
|
|
| QUOTATIONS 1898-1919 |
| ||||||
| 1898. The macro struggle for self-government after WWII which led to collapse of the former colonial empires and creation of the newly independent countries in Africa and Asia has been followed later by micro wars of many ethnically and religiously divergent groups within those new states for their own self-determination. These secondary conflicts, many of which still raging in Africa, are much bloodier than the primary ones and for at least two reasons: first – the weaponry of the modern warfare is deadlier and its supply seemingly endless, and second – the combatants in this second wave of national emancipations are not burdened with and restrained by guilt of the former colonial powers who were universally condemned by international opinion. On the contrary, they firmly believe in their right to govern themselves on their own separate territories. But when everyone seems to be right it is next to impossible to determine who is righter. And so, some of these wars of liberation are still going on and on, the millions of people are getting maimed and killed, and there is no end in sight. Now, when tragedy on such an enormous scale happen somebody has to take a blame . And the prevailing notion nowadays is that it is all the fault of the former colonial powers; that early on when dividing the spoils of imperialistic conquest they have created artificial heterogeneous conglomerates composed of people who had nothing in common and therefore never belong in one state to start with. So, it shouldn't be a great surprise that as soon as they left the dormant forces of ethnic and religious incompatibility and animosity had awakened in all their primordial fury. But while it is hard to argue against this notion it is only partially true. For what is also implied in this explanation is a mistaken belief that if left alone to begin with all these multitudes of tribes, languages, religions and customs would have peacefully coexisted, each in its ancestral enclave, homogeneous and content. Yet, nothing could be farther from the truth. Long before the colonial powers entered Africa, its tribes and nations were at constant wars with each other and some of them were better at it than others. Take for example Zulus and their mighty military machine by African standards – they didn't acquire their superior battle skills by tilling the land and tending flocks, did they? And if one finds all this unconvincing, one only have to look at Europe, the birthplace of colonial empires. For it took 2000 years of seldom interrupted warfare with millions upon millions of Europeans killed, to produce its so neatly arranged political map. And while admiring the intricate web of "natural" borders along rivers and mountain ranges one shall always remember that there is hardly any spot on this continent which is not soaked in blood. But that's what it takes on this planet of ours for a tribe or a nation to carve a place of its own, if it is lucky. Otherwise you are subject to conquest, subjugation, assimilation or total annihilation without a trace left. The world is not only a stage but also a market place where everything could be bought with gold, with one exception – the land, which could only be purchased with blood. For it is blood, not gold, that is the universally recognized currency of the world. And the process of nation building is also universal, from which no one can claim an exemption. It is notoriously, torturously slow. The time it takes is measured in centuries but also in the dead bodies, the hecatombs of them. This process was going on in Africa when Europeans arrived and interrupted it, or to paraphrase Michael Oakeshott, "it was temporary disrupted by the incursion of a foreign influence, it was diverted, restricted, arrested or become dried-up " until the downpours of freedom brought it back to life. And what we see now is a resumption of this natural process. And though nobody would deny the terrible oppression and ruthless exploitation of people of Africa by former colonial rulers, one thing has to be acknowledge that they also spared them during this rule the genocidal wars of self-determination in which they engaged now while the world is hopelessly looking on. There is another reason for this lamentable state of affairs. Initially, at the outset of imperialism in 16-17th centuries, the colonial powers were monarchies. But by the time they left in the middle of 20th century they were all democracies and naturally bestowed democratic form of government on their former colonies. But this has only exacerbated the process of their disintegration. For democracy is notoriously badly suited to keep multi-national states together. Neither Soviet Union nor Yugoslavia survived it. (If a reader is interested why, he may go back to quotation #252 for more detailed explanation.) And the newly created democratic African states haven't escaped its curse either. Very soon, in order to preserve the unity of their disparate parts they had to revert to some form of authoritarian rule and then try to use its iron hand to put down any attempt of separation. This, in turn, inflamed the situation farther by antagonizing those who were striving for it even more. As oppression increased the struggle against it increased as well. And so forth, and so on..., the vicious circle keeps revolving and nobody knows how to stop it. 1899. Some enjoy food, others–drink. Some admire nature, others–art. As for me, nothing is as beautiful as a well structured, insightful sentence. Take this one, for example: They preserved peace by a constant preparation of war. Or another one: The western countries were civilized by the same hands which subdued them. Both came from the pen of this incomparable master of English prose, Edward Gibbon, and each and many more in my eyes have more beauty than Mona Lisa or David. 1900. Witnessing everyday how much time and efforts, care and devotion are expended by a parent to raise a child from the moment of birth to at least late teens, and observing how little regard, both in thought and action, the grownup children show in general toward their aging parents, I often think that in a truly fair world each family would have a double-entry book into which what the parents have done for the children would be entered under the head "credit" and the children's reciprocal obligations to the parents under the head "debit," and that the account should never be considered closed until it is balanced. 1901. Even the irrational have their rationale for anything they do. 1902. To fulfil my fate without fail I've turned life into the endless scroll Sung a song that was more like a wail And then sunk in slumber of a soul. 1903. Those stylistically graceful English understatements ostensibly designed to smooth the way out of an awkward and sometimes potentially explosive situation are they the signs of verbal and social sophistication or of intellectual cowardice, of fear to call a spade a spade? 1904. In a society run by traditions, conventions and well established rules, and not so much by consensus but rather by the tacit acquiescence of citizenry to them (by the way, all of the above is applicable to any society at any particular time with exception of temporary aberrations caused by occasional upheavals) a "man of reason" can often be infuriating. For he alone seems to demand the reason before submitting to this or that tradition, convention or a rule, which everyone else accept and obey almost automatically and without questioning its reasonableness. 1905. Public affairs cannot be intrusted to someone who displays above the average concern with personal dressing or grooming. For these are the clear signs of vanity of appearance and could be easily translated into vanity of substance which is always detrimental to one's actions especially when one is in position of power. 1906. I began as a rather promising child and in due time developed into a very promising young man. Then, year after year, I continued in this state of being promising, first reaching the middle and finally the old age. But by that time I’ve completely forgot what this promise was and to whom. 1907. Some, actually very few use body to serve brain. Many, many more, perhaps the majority see brain as nothing but a tool to take care of body. 1908. Life and death are incommensurable, i.e. one cannot be compared with, evaluated by, measured against the other. For life is being, while death is non-being, the nothingness. Therefore such ostensibly profound statements as ‘all lives are essentially the same because they all end up in death’ of ‘death is the greatest equalizer, because it doesn’t discriminate between a king or a slave’ lack logical validity. Since life is life, and death is death To mix them is to make a mess. Life and death occupy the opposite realms, within which all comparisons could and should be made, but since it is not given to the living to know death they must confine their judgments to what they’re familiar with – life. And in life there is happiness and misery, victory and defeat, poverty and wealth, and each one of us knows quite well, pseudo-philosophical sophistry notwithstanding, that it is better to be healthy and wealthy than poor and sick. 1909. As was with the prophets of the Old Testament so it is with every jew –all have a bit of a prophetic streak in them. Which comes with a territory, so to speak, with the existential Jewish experience of never knowing for sure what the future holds and longing, often desperately, to find it out. It is an inevitable effect of always, or at least as far as the recorded history of the Jews would let us know, leading a precariously perilous existence on the edge of the abyss of inhalation. It is natural outcome of all these crucial dilemmas a jew faces: Are they coming or not? And if yes, how soon? Will we be destroyed completely or just made slaves? Will they take our processions only or our lives as well? Is there an escape? Should we stay or run? Would we return and, if yes, when? How it all will end? It would be inhuman not to try to find answers to all these vital questions. And that’s what prophecy is all about. 1910. The so-called successful people, those who rise above the rest in any field of human endeavor, be it art, business, or even pure science, do not, as a rule, have real friends. What they have instead is a flexible and fluid network of professional (in a narrow or broader sense of the word) acquaintances without whose help they would never achieve the position of prominence and who, in their turn, rely on them to do likewise. Of course, paying service to convention, they all pretend to be "dear" or "the dearest" friends and perform the obligatory rituals this term implies. But everyone who is "in the know"have no illusions what these "friendly" relationships are all about, i.e., about goals and means and when people are but the means to realize the goals. And those few who indulge into luxury of illusions are never successful, no matter how able they may be, and invariably dismissed as "incurable romantics" or simply called fools. 1911. Recently, I've heard a historian ( I wouldn't mention the name because a view he expressed is shared by the majority of his colleagues) saying that the task of a historian is to tell what has happened and why. And though it is hard to disagree with the first task – what, the second one – why is more problematic. As one who is familiar with propensity of most historians for divergent interpretations of the seemingly indisputable historical facts I often wish they confine themselves to the fullest possible discovery and description of what has actually happened and let the rest of us, the readers of their works, to make our own mind regarding why, instead of engaging into incessant incestuous squabbles among themselves. For even the initial process of gathering the basic facts about particular historical event has some elements of subjectivity – one may chose some and omit the others. But when it comes to interpretation a personality of the historian , his education, his personal experience, his environment, his ideology, his agenda, etc., etc. etc., has an enormous impact on the end results of it. And so, the only way for any historian to avoid the inevitable subjectivity of historical interpretations is to resist as strongly as possible the very human impulse to engage into it and to explain something which perhaps is not susceptible to any definite explanation. 1912. One achieve political success in a democratic society by mastering the intricate art of displaying in public civic passion and strength of convictions while feeling no passion but overwhelming desire to get to the top and no conviction but willingness to do anything to succeed in this single-minded pursuit. 1913. For the majority of people life without secrets, when everyone is absolutely honest and everything is completely open, when there are no mysteries, no misunderstandings, would be unbearably boring, like a crime drama when "who done it" would be clear in the first couple of minutes, instead of being held in suspense, confused and misled for two hours and finally surprised by the most improbable outcome just before the end. But that's where the trill lies for most of us. For life seems to be interesting only for as long as it's like a game – "hide and seek," "catch me if you can," etc. And though, undoubtedly, some who employ obfuscation, silences, half-truths, secrets, misleading statements, etc are driven by purely pragmatic considerations to gain something, many others do all this just for its own sake with no discernable ulterior motivations. Apparently, they enact these mystery dramas just to entertain themselves, to add excitement to their rather boringly predictable ordinary lives. Moreover, this type of behavior is especially prevalent among members of the middle class, who regard it as a sign of sophistication and refinement. Consequently, anyone not skilled in playing these amusing social games is looked down upon as an uncouth plebeian, not fit to be accepted into polite society. To be interesting, to deserve attention one has to be a puzzle and let be known slowly, bit by bit, by guessing and conjectures. It has to be like a striptease, taking one piece of clothe at a time, which admittedly more titillating than when someone drops all right away and appears stark naked at once. 1914. The universal admiration stars, both celestial and terrestrial, are held in is in direct proportion to the distance that separates them from their admirers. The farther they are from the viewer the more they seem to consist of nothing but the pure, bright light. However, there is always a danger that under the closer observation the origin of this glow may reveal some unflattering imperfections in the source which are mercifully concealed by its remoteness. 1915. If a man gives flowers to a woman, a man who neither cares about flowers nor personally attaches any significance to the act of giving flowers to a woman, but is doing so because he believes she does, a question arises: what is a point of him having a relationship with her, a woman he has nothing in common with , at least as far as significance of giving flowers is concerned? And again, if a man is having a conversation with a friend on a subject which has no interest to him whatsoever, but is going through it nevertheless because he believes it has a great importance to his friend, a question arises: why is he talking to someone he has nothing in common with, at least as a subject of conversation is concerned? And so it goes on and on. One is having relationships with people all his life, the people who are essentially strangers to him, because he has very little in common with them. And the question is: why? And the next question is how to find those few with whom he does? How hard is it? Do they actually exist? Isn't this quest just a huge waste of emotions and time spent in the continuing frustrations of hopes and endless disappointments of expectations? 1916. The most interesting, the most intriguing in all its tantalizing possibilities word in History is "If." What if David didn't kill Goliath, what if Caesar didn't cross Rubicon, or getting closer to our times, what if young Hitler, the budding painter, was accepted as a student in art academy in Vienna, how our world would look today? 1917. The persecuted minorities are caught in especially vicious circle of modern hell. By their seemingly unending and disheartening experience they know that if they don't speak for themselves no one else will –if I am not for myself, who is for me? And simply speaking nowadays is not enough. To be heard they have to scream at the top of their collective lungs to break through the deafening cacophony of everyone else's grievances and clamor for justice. But when they do, they are accused of being "a selfish pleader of special case," of trying unduly manipulate public opinion in their favor, and thus influence political agenda. In the case of American Jews, they are even accused of making the Government to act on their behalf. It is an article if faith of modern anti-Semites that Washington is run by some Jewish cabal, puling the strings behind the scene, and they firmly believe that the majority of Congress are either disguised Jews of closeted homosexuals, or both. And no amount of facts would convince them otherwise –the truth is powerless against hate. And yet if Jews stop reminding the world, again and again, about Holocaust, if Armenians stop talking about 1915 genocide, if homosexuals stop going on Pride parades or taking their grievances to court, would anybody care about their plight? But as much as they gain in recognition, as much as they obtain justice so is the hate and resentment against them, deprived of an easy opportunity to harm and to kill grows even stronger – there are more anti-Semitism and homophobia in the world today than in the good old days when a jew or homosexual could be abused, maimed and killed with impunity. And so, having to make a choice knowing well that even if they win, they lose, they are placed into a classic dilemma of Catch 22 –you damned if you do, and you damned if you don't. Alas, truth is not a magic weapon against hate and neither is justice done. 1918. There is nothing in life worth putting too much heart and effort into it. For in a long run, the only one which really matters, nobody knows how it will all end up. 1919. People who use language creatively, like prose and poetry writers, are usually not very good at a "small talk." For such conversations consist mainly of commonplaces, cliches and platitudes and those who are good at a "small talk" have seemingly inexhaustible supply of them at the tip of the tongue. And though such chats are by definition shallow, they have their appeal which is being easy flowing and smooth. But the whole point of being a creative writer is to avoid commonplaces, cliches and platitudes and to come up with original expressions, which plainly in a conversation is more laborious and takes more time then just retrieving ready made phrases. But this extra time and laboriousness is the very antithesis of a "small talk," which makes a creative writer a rather awkward interlocutor in a social setting when it is clearly called for. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00050 |