The Day that Changed the World

There’s been a lot of ink, tape and type expended on the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. The focus is on America’s eastern seaboard, on Manhattan. The Pentagon in D.C. and the Pennsylvanian field into which Flight 93 crashed have once again been somewhat sidelined by the sheer scale and death-toll of the New York attacks.

For all the words and wars that followed that dreadful day, the day that political (and media) rhetoric would have us believe changed the world, we don’t seem to be doing all that much better.

In the West, we have obligingly put up with the erosion of our individual freedom in the name of security, while we deplore the foreign campaigns being fought in the same name by our armed forces. These campaigns – the politicians tell us the war is over, long since won, and so I shouldn’t use the word – are becoming grindingly endless attrition, quagmires from which extricating our soldiers is ever farther away. So I have to ask: was war, was violence, was “shock and awe” (aka blitzkrieg) really the best answer?

Back in 2001, it had the advantage of being definite, active, in tune with the rising cries for bloody vengeance. With the hindsight of ten years of war, fought on peacetime budgets (because we’re not calling war) it’s harder to see just what this vengeance has accomplished.

In poverty, in deprivation, in the gaping chasm between have and have-not, discontent breeds anger and resentment, which in turn make terrorist acts appear an option. While war and brute force may have ousted Saddam, killed bin Laden and decimated Al Qaeda leadership, it hasn’t done much to diminish the underlying cause. Now, people resent foreign occupation, weary of the constant violence, the lack of solid infrastructure (yes, the West tries to win hearts and mind, build schools and hospitals, but insurgents can then bomb them again. And again).

I don’t want to diminish the tragedy of 9/11. I just wonder what really changed the world – the hijacked planes, or the West’s reaction.

The Last Warriors

A name to conjure with: in literature, Cossacks are portrayed as free, independent warriors or cruel and ruthless soldiers. They are, perhaps, the last surviving European warrior caste or culture. Currently, they’re back in the media for a campaign they’re waging in the Ukraine, promoting a “united Slavic state” (read Russian Empire Mk 3).

Cossack boys are trained as fighters almost from birth. They are traditionally master horsemen – not surprising when they learn to ride from the age of three. Their initiation is harsh and violent – a hand to hand fight with a more skilled opponent – and their tactics are cynical at times: recently, several Cossacks confronted Ukrainian police in a long-running dispute over the (illegal) installation of a large Russian Orthodox cross outside a city, and were badly beaten (as they’d expected to be) which looked like police brutality to the Russian Orthodox community that supports the Cossacks. As tactics go, cynicism is an advantage – ever since Sun Tzu, this is an unspoken fact of military strategy

Despite very traditional values and distinct gender divisions, in some ways Cossack culture is pretty democratic – the Ataman/Hetman or leader is elected, along with other officials including clergy (which says interesting things about the place of religion in their society) at a Rada, or Band Assembly. This Assembly has the legislative power (such as it is for a culture that has no written laws, but lives rather by Traditions which bear more than a passing resemblance to Omerta), while the Ataman is the executive power and Commander-in-Chief in battle.

In Russia, things may be changing: Yulia Tkachenko is the Ataman in the Alexandrov area – the only woman to hold the title. She argues that these days, women are morally stronger than the men. Other Atamans aren’t happy about it, but it could be a sign of changing times for the last warrior culture in Europe. 

Strong Enough

Catching up on TV viewing, I’ve noticed something I didn’t expect – in television, strong men are rare. Men who can love and be foils for strong women without coming across as emasculated – well, the phrase ‘hen’s teeth’ comes to mind.

Like many women, I have fought most of my life. I have fought to be myself, to be recognised as an individual. I have fought bullying, assault, upheaval, addiction, and I am still standing. I have examined the cultural expectations for my dreams and my life, I’ve fought to make them fit me, and when I couldn’t make that happen, I fought to be allowed to make my own choices, good and bad. And yes, all of that has left a couple of scars.

That which doesn’t kill us, saccharine cliché though it is to say, really does make us stronger. The more we survive, the more we’re capable of surviving. There is a dark side though - the longer we fight, the less we remember what it’s like not to. (Granted, there is not much opportunity not to fight. Not for an unconventional woman, not in this world).

None of that means that strong can only be with weak. It takes a strength of character to allow someone to be strong, independent, make their own decisions and mistakes, because we want to protect the people we care about (on both sides of the gender equation). It may not be a great plot device for drama, but that doesn’t make it less valid in the real world. Let’s face it, in the real world, we’re not really looking for drama from our nearest and dearest. We generally get enough of that from work, from the world in general. At home, we’re looking for peace. Life isn’t scripted, doesn’t have easy answers. Fiction does. Pity we blur the line between the two.

It should be no surprise, then, to see headlines about the dangers of romantic comedies inflating expectations and ruining relationships, because reality doesn’t measure up to escapism. Maybe because escapism has so few examples of men strong enough to allow the women they’re in relationships with to be strong. No wonder I’m being invited to debates about whether strong women necessarily result in weaker men, even though the reverse is true.

Just a thought.

Hope Springs Eternal

While real seismic shifts repeatedly hit Japan, political one still shake up the Middle East. Overshadowed by recent events in Europe, the Arab Spring is rumbling on through summer. It has rekindled hope for many in the West who would like to see democracy spread east and south, across the globe. It worries many who don’t see how democracy would play with traditional regional cultures and social structures. The question becomes whether those traditional structures and memes are still relevant, still useful in the increasingly globalised 21^st century, or whether they too will need to adapt (or die).

How much will really change? It’s too soon to tell, but it might advisable for any new or potential leaders in the region to watch the women, from both sides of the political specturm. Women have formed the backbone of the upheavals – among the first to take to the streets (Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt); the ones organising the medical supplies, food and water deliveries to Tahrir Square that allowed the moment to become a vigil, a slogan, the powerful symbol of enduring anger against authority that it now is; opening their homes to treat those too scared to go to government hospitals (Bahrain) – the list goes on. In Libya, it was women who protested outside a courthosue in Benghazi after the arrest of their lawyer  - some even forgetting to cover their faces. Even in conservative Syria and Yemen, women have joined the protests. They are still supporting the protests, despite the danger of violence, rape and death.

While their countries try to get back to normal, they are at risk of being sidelined and pushed back towards their familiar place. I doubt they’ll stay there, however hard they’re pushed. These women may not exactly be burning their burkhas but it would be dangerously naïve to assume they will go quietly back to the age-old pigeon-hole of silent deferential domesticity the world is used to presuming for them. They are intelligent, determined and beginning to know their power. If Westernisation isn’t a palatable option, perhaps the traditionalists could look further back, to the warrior queens of the region’s history, for the role women can play in society.

Strength, Power, Control

Power is a funny thing. Its official definition is unexpectedly varied, but most often,

we equate power with force and strength. The looters on the streets of London (and across the UK) spoke of “owning this town” and made comments about the police being helpless with the looters in charge. They were there out of boredom and opportunistic greed, but the supposition of “people power” harks back to other, more politically focussed riots – in Athens, in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria. It echoes Martin Luther King Jr’s definition: “ A riot is at bottom the language of the unheard.” And the unheard, in a democracy, are the disempowered.

The police, representing the government and the judicial power, were struggling to exercise control over the rioters, looking outnumbered and a constant step behind. So, where, in all this anarchy, is the power? With the official powers or the people randomly stealing from and vandalising their own communities? (To be fair to the police, they have to be reactive – if you shut down a city or arrest people before they commit a crime, you’re not using socially or legally acceptable policing methods).

Power, in martial arts, is not always about strength. In the softer arts it has more to do with chi and intent – the power in my punch has nothing to do with my musculature (thankfully) and everything to do with my positioning, footwork and skill.

In martial arts, especially yin arts, strength comes second to control. Control comes from discipline and is more important than strength. Control allows you to choose to use your strength for the best effect.

In Britain, policing is by consent. It should work on the same principle – that strength of is secondary to control. This can only happen if the public accept the authority of the police, which, clearly, many don’t.

The theory was that policing could be based on respect rather than fear. For many years, it worked. Now that respect is gone, especially in a generation for the majority of whom respect is meaningless. Control and discipline are foreign concepts to those who aspire to a lifestyle of instant, effortless gratification and entitlement. This is not unique to the UK, but infects the whole of the Westernised world – which now includes far more be than just one hemisphere.

We talk of rights, but never of responsibilities. Political Correctness has drawn the teeth of authority – teachers, parents and police alike are too hemmed in by PC to instil in anyone the idea of discipline, responsibility or work before achievement. It has ensured we can no longer police, unarmed, by consent.

Oranges, apples and pears

On YouTube there are hundreds of videos featuring martial style A versus martial style B, and the comments beneath them range are incredibly partisan. On the forums as well, people argue over which style is the ultimate, best style – often coming to virtual blows. Why?

You might as well argue oranges versus apples or pears. Yes, they’re all fruit, but beyond that it’s pretty impossible to make any sensible comparisons. They’re different fruit. If you have a cold, eat the orange; if you need fibre, go for the apple.

I am a martial arts student, and yet I barely feel qualified to make judgements about the kung fu style I’m learning, much less any others. And what everyone forgets (or possibly doesn’t know) is that in a real fight, it’s not about style or grace. It’s about what works.

On the street, anything goes, anything’s a weapon and the only rule is: Don’t Lose. In a dojo or a boxing ring, one style may win against another: wing chun may defeat taekwondo, and in turn be defeated by hapkido – but when the stakes are more than pride, and the surface is harder than mats, the winner is the one who’s left standing at the end, not the one whose style is pure or graceful.

Nobody knows how they’ll react to real attack until it happens. I specify “real” because macho posturing to establish social order isn’t the same thing as someone actively trying to kill you. When it does happen (and it would be foolish to believe we’re not just as vulnerable as the next statistic), that’s when you find out how good a fighter you really are – when it’s not about any one style, but the whole fruit salad of whatever will stop him hitting you.

Valkyrie

I don’t wish to give airtime to the ravings of maniacs, but when they commit mass murder, they become hard to ignore.

I spent some time (far too much) reading Breivik’s “manifesto” and there was one logical inconsistency that screamed out far more than any others. Breivik claims to be fighting a war against the “Islamic invasion of Europe” – and in his manifesto he cites sharia law and Muslim treatment of women (I use Muslim because he does, but while ‘honour’ crimes may be cloaked in religious excuses, they’re just misogyny) as things the West should fear and fight. But he simultaneously blames feminism and the rise of gender equality for the “emasculation” of the West that is, as far he’s concerned, allowing this invasion in the first place.

The trouble with the 2083 manifesto is that it appears, at first glance, to be well-researched and argued. While it’s full of internal inconsistencies and random digressions (and stylistically appalling, but what did I expect) if you only scan it, and it’s so long most people will only do that, it could potentially be persuasive.

But back to the one inconsistency that jumped up and down screaming at me: Breivik comes from a culture that gave us the Valkyries, shieldmaidens and Unnur the Deep Minded (a wealthy woman who became a leader and chieftain in Iceland).  New evidence suggests Viking women accompanied Viking armies – if only because colonisation was as much a Viking aim as pillage. The Sagas tell of many strong women, causing, directing and diverting the action.

So Breivik, for all his “patriotism” seems to have forgotten, or chosen to ignore, large chunks of his own heritage in order to make the contradictory argument that feminism – especially radical misogyny-is-still-a-pervasive-global-problem feminism - is paving the way for the West to come under the most gender unequal interpretations of sharia law (am I the only one who cannot see the logical chain here?)

So I would suggest that now is the time for the Valkyries to ride again to battle, against all the myriad oppressors of individual freedom that are rearing their heads in this new crusading climate.