"نوشته ای برای آنان که خواندن را دوست دارند"

از: پرویز شهریاری

دانش­آموزان را به گروه­های سه نفری تقسيم کردم و در هر گروه يک دانش­آموز به اصطلاح (قوی)، يک دانش­آموز (متوسط) و يک دانش­آمو ز(ضعيف) قرار دادم

حدس می­زنيد که من از طرف پدر و مادرها و مسئولان مدرسه زير چه فشار روحی قرار گرفتم

تقسيم دانش­آموزان به (با استعداد) و (کم استعداد) آن­طور که گمان می­شود ساده نيست و اگر روش کار درست باشد بسياری از (کم­استعدادها) به گروه (بااستعدادها) می­پيوندند

وقتی به کسی از چپ و راست وصله بی ­شعوری و بی ­استعدادی زده می­شود او به تدريج اين اعتقاد ديگران را می­پذيرد، اعتماد نسبت به خود را از دست می­دهد و باور می­کند که نمی­تواند چيزی ياد بگيرد

برای معرفی این شخصیت می بایست خیلی کار کرد. فقط در این جا به ذکر این مسئله اکتفا می کنیم که کافیست اسمش را در جعبه ی جستجوی گوگل بزنید تا در صدها صفحه ببینید چه واکنشی از جانب انواع رسانه ها نسبت به درگذشت او شده است.

در این صفحه ی رهیافت مطلب "نوشته ای برای آنان که خواندن را دوست دارند" از پرویز شهریاری که در زمینه ی آموزش و پرورش نوشته است دوباره چاپ می شود. این مطلب اولین بار گویا در ماهنامه ی "دانش و مردم" به چاپ رسیده و بسیاری دیگر از رسانه های چاپی و اینترنتی نیز آن را بعدها دوباره منتشر ساخته اند.

این متن درآمدی است بر این که هیچ کس بی هوش و استعداد نیست و این با آموزگار است که بداند چه روشی را باید پیش گیرد که شاگرد علاقمند شود و بتواند با درس هایش موفقش شود. او شیوه های خاص خود را بدین منظور در این مطلب می نویسد. طبعاً همانگونه که خود می گوید به تعداد معلمین خوب روش های خوب وجود دارد. اما آنچه بیش از همه در این مطلب می بایست مد نظر قرار گیرد آن نگاه انسانی و دلسوزانه ایست که این آموزگار بزرگ به ما می آموزد بی آنکه ادعایی داشته باشد.

دست کم آنان که در آمریکای شمالی زندگی کرده اند می دانند که آموزش و پرورش ً مانند هر فعالیت دیگری کمتر جنبه های انسانی را در نظر می گیرد و شغل معلمی مانند هر شغل دیگری بیشتر برای کسب درآمد است و آن تقدس که در کشور ما ایران برای آموزگاران در نظر می گرفتند وجود ندارد همانگونه که دیدگاه نسبت به کتاب و نویسندگی و روزنامه نگاری با آنچه که می بایست هدف اصلی باشد توفیر کرده است.

در حال حاضر ارجح است که مطلب "نوشته ای برای آنان که خواندن را دوست دارند" به تألیف استاد پرویز شهریاری را با هم بخوانیم:

نوشته ای برای آنان که خواندن را دوست دارند

پرویز شهریاری

بشر برای این نیامده که کورکورانه و از روی نادانی کار کند، بلکه باید پیوسته با آنچه نادرست است در جدال و با آنچه نارواست در جنگ باشد (ژوزف ارنست رنان)

روش آموزش امروزی دو جنبه و يک هدف دارد. دو جنبه آن عبارت است از: روش يادگيری و روش ارزيابی. هدف آن تربيت آدم­هايی است که بتوانند دشواری­های جامعه خود يا جامعه ی جهانی را حل کند. درباره روش ياد دادن سخنی نمی- گويم، چون همه از آن آگاهيم و با آن بزرگ شده­ايم و از نتيجه کم و بيش ناگوار آن هم اطلاع داريم. روش ارزيابی و نحوه امتحان را هم می­شناسيم. تمام شرط­ها را برای ترس و نگرانی دانش­آموز فراهم می­کنيم و بعد در يک جلسه کوتاه، زير فشار روحی بی­اندازه­ای، (دانش) او را (ارزيابی) می­کنيم. من به نادرستی اين روش، که به نظرم از بيخ و بن نادرست است، نمی­پردازم و تنها به چند نکته جانبی آن اشاره می­کنم.
 

زمانی که با يکی از همکارانم که حاضر نبود با افزودن تنها يک نمره دانش­آموزی را از (مردودی) نجات دهد، صحبت می­کردم، به او که به دقت امتحان خود اطمينان داشت گفتم: اگر همين امروز، يک بار ديگر، از دانش­آموزانت امتحان بگيری و پرسش­ها را هم، تا حد همان پرسش­های بار اول قرار دهی، آيا می­توانی با اطمينان بگويی که همه آن­ها، همين نمره را خواهند گرفت؟ به طور طبيعی پاسخ او منفی بود. گفتم: اگر برای نمونه، يک هفته ديگر به دانش­آموزانت وقت بدهی و بعد امتحان بگيری چطور؟ باز معلوم بود که نمره­ها تغيير می­کند. گفتم: راه­حل ساده­تری انتخاب می­کنيم؛ نه امتحان تازه­ای لازم است، نه دقت بيشتری. برای دانش­آموزان همين ورقه­ها را با تغيير ميزان نمره­ای که به هر پرسش داده­ای دوباره تصحيح کن. از آنجا که ارزش هر پرسش را خودت معين کرده­ای، می­توانی به صورت ديگری آن­را تغيير دهی؛ آن وقت چه خواهد شد؟ روشن بود که باز هم نمره­ها تغيير می­کردند. گفتم: اگر با همين پرسش­ها و همين بارم، ورقه­ها را چند ماه ديگر خودت تصحيح کنی، به شرطی که نمره­های امروز را فراموش کرده باشی- با تفاوت احتمالی که در روحيه امروز و آن روزِ تو به وجود می­آيد- آيا مطمئنی همين نمره­ها را روی ورقه­ها بگذاری؟ در اينجا هم پاسخ منفی بود.

خوب، اين چگونه ارزشيابی است که با تغيير هر عاملِ کوچک آن، بدون اينکه در (دانش) فرد مورد آزمايش تغييری پيش آيد، نتيجه را دگرگون می­کند؟ گمان می­کنم همين چند جمله برای بی­ارزش بودن اينگونه ارزشيابی کافی باشد.

سال­ها پيش، در يکی از دبيرستان­ها، دانش­آموزی داشتم که مرا به شگفتی می­انداخت. هر وقت در کلاس چيزی از او می­پرسيدم، با اطمينان و قدرت کافی پاسخ می­داد. ولی برگ­های امتحانی او هميشه از متوسط هم اندکی پايين­تر بود. تصميم گرفتم در يکی از جلسه­های امتحان، بدون اينکه خود او متوجه شود، مراقب کار او باشم. او پيش از اينکه امتحان آغاز شود روی مسئله­ای که به ظاهر ذهن او را به خود مشغول داشته بود کار می­کرد؛ چنان در خود فرو رفته بود که متوجه پخش پرسش­های امتحانی نشد. من هشداری به او ندادم. بيش از يک ساعت از وقت امتحان گذشت و او همچنان به کار خود مشغول بود. من تاب نياوردم و به او اعلام کردم که روز امتحان است و وقت دارد تمام می­شود. با ناراحتی نگاهی به پرسش­ها کرد. قلم را روی کاغذ گذاشت و آغاز به نوشتن کرد. بعد از نيم ساعت بلند شد و برگ امتحانی را تحويل داد و رفت. نمره امتحانی او مانند هميشه درخشان نبود. ولی من متوجه شدم او از آن­هايي است که به راه فکری خود بيشتر اهميت می­دهد تا نمره­ای که در کارنامه­اش بيايد. اين دانش­آموز به سفارش من و بر خلاف سفارش ديگران رشته­ رياضی را دنبال کرد و امروز يکی از صاحب­نظران در رشته رياضی است و در يکی از معتبرترين دانشگاه­های جهان، به تدريس و تحقيق در رياضيات مشغول است.
 

چه بايد کرد؟ بی ترديد من نمی­توانم نسخه­ای شفابخش ارائه کنم. من که عمری معلم بوده­ام و کم و بيش با شيوه مرسومتدريس کرده­ام درد را بهتر می­شناسم تا درمان را. درباره موضوع به اين پيچيدگی چون آموزش نبايد منتظر بود نسخه­ای فوری و قطعی پيدا شود. آنچه در اينجا می­گويم و نتيجه­ای از تجربه معلمی من است تنها می­تواند نوعی مسکن تلقی شود. من از دو سفارش و يک پيشنهاد سخن خواهم گفت:

نخستين سفارش من اين است که تا جايي که ممکن است از کار انفرادی پرهيز کنيم و دانش­اندوزی را به صورت يک کارگروهی درآوريم. باز هم از يک تجربه خود ياد کنم: اين پيش­آمد مربوط به زمانی است که من دانشجو بودم و درضمن در يکی از دبيرستان­ها تدريس می­کردم. در آن دبيرستان سه کلاس دوم دبيرستان وجود داشت که درس هندسه يکی از آن- ها به عهده من گذاشته شده بود. من بعد از نزديک به يک ماه که با کلاس به اندازه کافی آشنا شده بودم، دانش­آموزان را به گروه­های سه نفری تقسيم کردم و در هر گروه يک دانش­آموز به اصطلاح (قوی)، يک دانش­آموز (متوسط) و يک دانش­آموز (ضعيف) قرار دادم. رو به کلاس گفتم: من به فرد نمره نمی­دهم و فرد را نمی­شناسم. برای من گروه مطرح است. برای نمونه، وقتی شما امتحان بدهيد، هرکسی بايد برگ خودش را بنويسد؛ ولی من سه برگ هر گروه را به هم سنجاق می­کنم، مجموع نمره­های سه گروه را به سه تقسيم می­کنم و نتيجه را برای هر سه نفر می­گذارم... حدس می­زنيد بازتاب اين حرف در کلاس چگونه بود؟ دانش­آموزان ضعيف خوشحال بودند ولی فرياد دانش­آموزان قوی بلند شد که: اگر دوست من درس نمی­خواند، من چه گناهی کرده­ام؟ ولی من بی­احساس و بی­تفاوت روی تصميم خود پای فشردم. دانش­آموزان باور نکردند ولی وقتی در سه ماه نخست به همين ترتيب عمل کردم به خود آمدند. البته حدس می­زنيد که من از طرف پدر و مادرها و مسئولان مدرسه زير چه فشار روحی قرار گرفتم. همه را تحمل کردم و در تصميم خود تغييری ندادم. دانش­آموزان به جان هم افتادند، وقت­های زيادی را در مدرسه می­ماندند و به هم کمک می­کردند، به خانه­های هم می­رفتند، هر گروه از گروه­های ديگر کمک می­گرفت و در همه اين موردها دانش­آموزان قوی به علت از دست دادن نمره خوب پيش­قدم بودند. امتحان سه ماهه دوم را هم به همين ترتيب انجام دادم. تلاش دانش­آموزان بيشتر شد و همراه با آن فشار به من هم روزافزون­تر بود؛ حتی در اثر شکايت پدر و مادرها، از طرف وزارت فرهنگ آن زمان، کسانی برای رسيدگی به اين رفتار ظالمانه من به دبيرستان آمدند ولی خوشبختانه تا بازرس­ها منتظر گزارش­های خود بودند سال تحصيلی به پايان خود رسيد و برنامه امتحانی آخر سال را دادند. نمره­های آخر سال را به ترتيب معمول دادم يعنی نمره هرکسی را به خودش. نتيجه کار شگفتی­آور بود. در کلاس من هيچ­کس نمره کمتر از 15 نداشت. همه از درس هندسه قبول شدند. و اين معجزه کار گروهی بود. اين تجربه نتيجه ديگری هم داشت. معلوم شد تقسيم دانش­آموزان به (با استعداد) و (کم استعداد) آن­ طور که گمان می­شود ساده نيست و اگر روش کار درست باشد بسياری از (کم­استعدادها) به گروه (بااستعدادها) می­پيوندند. به جز همه اين کارها، کارگروهی رابطه انسانی بين دانش­آموزان را تقويت می­کند، از رقابت­های ناسالم آن­ها می­کاهد و محيطی به وجود می­آورد که هرکسی خودش را مسئول سرنوشت ديگری هم می­داند. بايد عادت کنيم در تمام کارهای علمی تک­روی را کنار بگذاريم. شما آزمايش کنيد؛ حتی اگر يک داستان را دو يا سه نفری با هم بخوانيد و درباره آن بحث کنيد در مقايسه با مطالعه انفرادی چه نتيجه­های شگفت­انگيزی به دست می­آوريد. طبيعت کار گروهی ايجاب می ­کند که با بحث و انتقاد و خرده ­گيری همراه باشد و همين وضع به سالم­تر شدن رابطه­ی انسانی افراد و هم به عميق­تر شدن يادگيری دانش کمک فراوان می­کند.

و اما سفارش دوم من اين است که در دانش­آموزان اعتماد به خود به وجود آوريد. وقتی به کسی از چپ و راست وصله بی­شعوری و بی­استعدادی زده می­شود او به تدريج اين اعتقاد ديگران را می­پذيرد اعتماد نسبت به خود را از دست می­دهد و باور می­کند که نمی­تواند چيزی ياد بگيرد.

در همان دبيرستان و در کلاس ديگری، و باز هم در درس هندسه، دانش­آموزی بود که همه دبيران و اداره­کنندگان مدرسه از او به بدی ياد می­کردند. پيش از آنکه من به کلاس بروم مدير مدرسه به من هشدار داد که مواظب اين دانش­آموز باشم چون بی­تربيت و بی­شعور است. وقتی که من از درس رياضی او پرسيدم با لبخند تمسخرآميزی به من گفت: من می­گويم او بی­شعور است و تو می­پرسی آيا رياضيات را می­فهمد يا نه؟ من با ترس و دلهره وارد کلاس شدم. می­ترسيدم اين دانش­آموز ناگهان برخيزد و صندلی يا چيزی ديگر به سمت من پرتاب کند. برای اينکه او را بشناسم دفتر کلاس را با خود بردم و دانش­آموزان را يکی يکی صدا کردم. او هم مانند ديگران با شنيدن نام خود برخاست و بعد نشست. مسئله­ای را مطرح کردم. شکل آن را روی تخته کشيدم و به ياری خود دانش­آموزان آغاز به حل آن کردم. گاه از اين دانش­آموز به اصطلاح (بی­شعور) هم چيزی می­پرسيدم، ولی تلاش می­کردم پرسش من طوری باشد که او پاسخ درست بدهد. هر بار که او پاسخ درست را می­داد با رضايت به او نگاه می­کردم و می­گفتم: آفرين تو خوب می­فهمی! نگاه او حاکی از آن بود که تمجيدهای مرا باور ندارد. همه به او می­گفتند تو چيزی نمی­فهمی و حالا کسی پيدا شده و به فهم او آفرين می­گويد؛ ولی قيافه و بيان من جدی بود و به تدريج اطمينان پيدا کرد که من قصد مسخره کردن او را ندارم. گاهی می­ديدم در زنگ­های تفريح به دنبال اين و آن که: شما را به خدا درس هندسه را به من بگوييد. من تنها نزد يک نفر آبرو دارم و نمی خواهم اینجا هم آبرویم برود. و من هرگز نگذاشتم آبروی او برود. در تمام جلسه ها از او پرسیدم  ولی همیشه به نحوی که او بتواند پاسخ درست را بدهد. این دانش آموز کم کم در درس هندسه راه افتاد و نسبت به آن علاقه مند شد. نزدیکی های پایان سال بود که پدرش به دیدار من آمد. او می خواست بداند من چه کرده ام که پسرش تا این اندازه به هندسه علاقه مند شده است، در حالی که هنوز هیچ یک از درسهای خود را یاد نمی گیرد. پدرش می گفت حتی سر میز نهار هم، همانطور که غذا می خورد، درباره مساله هندسه فکر می­کند و در جیبش کاغذی آماده دارد که هر جا فرصتی پیش آمد روی مساله مورد علاقه اش کار کند. به پدرش گفتم: من تنها به او فهمانده ام که بر خلاف آن چه همه می گویند، او بی شعور نیست و می تواند همه چیز را بفهمد. البته، این موضوع را با روش خاص خودش گفته­ام، نه با مذاکره روبه رو و صریح. این دانش­آموز در آن سال از درس هندسه نمره بسیار خوبی گرفت ولی به دلیل نمره­های بسیار پایینی که در درس­های ديگر گرفته بود، مردود شد. می­بینید که اعتماد به خود معجزه ­گر می­­باشد. اعتقاد دارم هر آدمی می­تواند دیگران را فریب دهد ولی برای اینکه کسی بتواند خودش را فریب دهد به نیروی روحی بی اندازه­ای نیاز دارد. ما همیشه درباره خود با افراط و تفریط داوری می­کنیم. به ویژه درباره قابلیت­های خود خیلی کمتر از آنچه هستیم تصور می­کنیم. این به ویژه درباره جوان­ها که خیلی زود زیر تلقین بزرگترها قرار می­گیرند بیشتر صدق می­کند. بارها پیش آمده است دانش­آموزی را که گمان می­کرده است درس را نمی­فهمد واداشته ام تا درس تازه­ای را چنان یاد بگیرد که بتواند آن را به همکلاسی­های خود درس بدهد و برای اینکه انگیزه­ای داشته باشد با او قرار گذاشته ­ام که نمره تدریس او همان نمره امتحانش خواهد بود و اغلب از عهده این کار سنگین به خوبی برآمده­اند و با این موفقیت چنان اعتمادی نسبت به خود پیدا کرده­اند که دیگر از آن درس عقب نمانده­اند. گروه­بندی کلاس­ها به " قوی" و "ضعیف"، به شدت به دانش­آموزان نسبت به قابلیت خود لطمه می­زند و آن­ها را از پیشرفت عادی خود باز می­دارد. این برچسب­ها که بیشتر مطابق با واقع نیست و نتیجه­ای از "ارزشیابی" نادرست است دانش­آموز را به کلی در برابر خودش ناتوان و بی­دفاع می­کند و از مسیر پیشرفت بازش می­دارد.

یکی از راه های دیگری که به دانش آموزان کمک می کند تا اعتماد بیشتری نسبت به خودشان پیدا کنند این است که به بخش هایی از درس را که ساده تر است نا تمام بگذاریم و نتیجه گیری کامل و دقیق را از خود آنها بخواهیم. تجربه نشان داده است که بیشتر دانش آموزان به خوبی می توانند ضمن کار گروهی و به کمک یکدیگر، بدون یاری معلم، درس های علمی را فرا بگیرند. در این صورت معلم می تواند تنها نقش راهنما را داشته باشد و نارسایی استدلال های احتمالی آنها را اصلاح کند.

و اما درباره پیشنهاد: بیشتر دانش آموزان از این موضوع گله دارند که باید در همه ی زمینه های علم و ادب، آن هم به صورت انبوه و بی ارتباط به هم، مطالبی را یاد بگیرند بدون اینکه ذوق و آینده ی آنها در نظر گرفته شود. در برخی از کشورها برای رفع این دشواری روش انتخاب واحد را در دبیرستان ها هم اجرا می کنند که تا اندازه ای وضع را بهتر می کند. ضمن اینکه انتخاب واحد هم دشواری های دیگری را در پی دارد که به نوبه خود کم اهمیت نیستند . پیشنهاد من این است: درس های دبیرستانی را برای همه یکنواخت کنند. این درس ها باید شامل مطالبی باشد که دانستن آن ها برای هر فرد جامعه امروزی انسانی لازم است. این برنامه ها باید طوری تنظیم شود که در هر هفته به بیش از 20 ساعت درس نیاز نباشد تا بتوان تمام بعد از ظهرهای دانش آموزان را آزاد گذاشت. در کنار درس های دبیرستانی  کلاس های ویژه ای در همه رشته های گوناگون فرهنگ و هنر با راهنمایان معلمان خاص خود تدارک دیده شود که برای نمونه  نام آن ها را (انجمن ) می گذاریم: انجمن ریاضیات، انجمن فیزیک، انجمن نقاشی، انجمن موسیقی، انجمن ورزش، انجمن کشاورزی...هر دانش آموز می نواند به میل خود و با راهنمای معلمان، یکی از انجمن ها را برای خود انتخاب کند و یا در هیچ انجمنی شرکت نکند. برای نمونهکسی که انجمن ریاضی را انتخاب می کند، در هفته به جز درس های دبیرستانی که برای همه مشترک است، 12 ساعت تنها ریاضیات می خواند. انجمن ریاضی برنامه منظمی دارد و معلوم است در هر سال چه مطالبی باید خوانده شود. کسی که می خواهد تحصیل خود را بعد از دبیرستان ادامه دهد  باید دوره 5 سال یکی از انجمن ها را گذرانده باشد. در سال اول انجمن می توان آن را تغییر داد. در ضمن دانش آموزانی که انجمن ریاضی را انتخاب کرده اند، این وظیفه را هم دارند که دانش آموزان کلاس صبح خود یا دانش آموزان کلاس پایینتر خود را در دوره عادی دبیرستان از نظر ریاضی تقویت کنند یعنی در واقع دستیار دبیر ریاضی باشند . از این ره به همکاری با دیگران و به عمیق تر کردن آگاهی های خود به احساس مسوولیت نسبت به سرنوشت همسالان خود علاقه مند می شوند .

آی نقی حالا که مهدی خوابه ما تورو صدا میزنیم

با صدای شاهین نجفی  خواننده ای آگاه  و متفکر و تنظیم مجید کاظمی

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd2tRSjVdaM

 ترانه ی جدید  شاهین نجفی، خواننده ی رپ ایران
آی نقی حالا که مهدی خوابه ما تورو صدا میزنیم 
یکی از زیباترین ترانه های رپ در این چند سال اخیر است. این ترانه  از مسائل اجتماعی ایران نشئت گرفته است و با دیدگاهی انتقادی - فلسفی به آنچه که در کشورمان می گذرد نظر می اندازد

این ترانه با واکنش های تندی در ایران مواجه شد و برخی آن را "توهین به مقدسات" دانسته اند. روز چهارشنبه ۲۰ اردیبهشت (۹ مه) خبرگزاری فارس در خبری با عنوان "حکم ارتداد شاهین نجفی صادر شد" نوشت که یکی از مراجع تقلید شیعه در قم در پاسخ به مقلدان خود یادآوری کرده که اگر شخص یا اشخاصی به امامان شیعه توهین کرده باشند "مرتد" محسوب می شوند . این خبرگزاری همچنین از
تشکیل کمپین اعدام شاهین نجفی خبر داده است
انتشار این ترانه از یک طرف نشان می دهد که چگونه هنر و بخصوص آواز می تواند در بازتاب مسائل اجتماعی نقش داشته باشد و دیگر اینکه هنر را از حیطه ی فردی خارج ساخته و زندگانی افراد را در رابطه ی مستقیم با شرایط اجتماعی با دیدگاه فلسفی و انتقادی می بیند

بنابر بر اطلاعاتی که از ویکیپدیا کسب شد، شاهین نجفی زاده ی سال ۱۳۵۹ در بندر انزلی است و در گیلان زندگی می ‌کرده ‌است. وی زمانی که شش سال داشته‌ است پدرش را از دست می‌دهد و بعدها نیز با اعتیاد برادرش روبه رو می‌شود. او از نوجوانی به سرودن شعر و ترانه روی آورد و از هیجده سالگی نواختن ساز گیتار را در سبک‌های کلاسیک و فلامنکو نزد اساتید این ساز همانند سهراب فلک انگیز، فرزاد دانشمند و حامد حمیدی آموخت. وی آوازهای هارمونی و سلفژ را نزد استاد سنگاچینی و استاد فریدون پوررضا آموخت و سپس آواز خواندن را در سبک‌های راک و اسپانیولی در ایران به صورت زیرزمینی آغاز کرد و با چند گروه مختلف همکاری کرده‌است. او دانشجوی رشته جامعه شناسی بوده‌است و نظر خود را در محیط دانشگاه به طور صریح بیان می‌کرده‌ است و از این جهت وی را به علت هنجار شکنی از دانشگاه اخراج کردند.
ما مرد نیستیم، چیز و بگا مگا  از جمله ترانه های دیگر اوست
ترانه ی آی نقی حالا که مهدی خوابه ما تورو صدا میزنیم را در صفحه ی یوتیوب زیر ملاحظه فرمائید. متن ترانه نیز در زیر آمده است

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd2tRSjVdaM

نقی تورو قسم به شوخ طبعیت به این بیرونه از گود تو تبعید
به آلت بزرگ زندگانی که پشت ما نشسته رو به تهدید
نقی تورو به طول و عر, ض تحریم دلار رو به رشد و حس تحقیر
نقی تورو به امام مقوایی به طفل علی گوی تو رحم گیر
به درس فقه تو اطاق عمل بینی به اقا تسبیح و جانماز چینی
نقی تورو به انگشت شیث رضایی به دینی که اوت شده و فوتبال دینی
آییی نقی ...!ی
حالا که مهدی خوابه ما تورو صدا میزنیم آی نقی
تو ظهور کن که ما آماده تو کفنیم آی نقی
نقی تورو قسم به عشق ویاگرا تورو به لنگای هوا شده و چاک راه
تو رو به سنگگ مرغ گوشت و ماهی سینه سیلی کنی و بکارت راه راه
نقی تورو به ممه های گلشیفته به آبرویی که نداشته که از ما ریخته
نقی تورو به نژاد آریایی نه به پلاک گردن آویخته
نقی جون من تورو به شوشول فرنود سه هزار میلیارد زیر گنبد کبود
خلیج فارس و ارومیه هم قصه بود راستی اسم رهبر جنبش سبز چی بود؟
آییی نقی...!ی
حالا که مهدی خوابه ما تورو صدا میزنیم آی نقی
تو ظهور کن که ما آماده تو کفنیم آی نقی
آیییی نقـــییییی آیی نقیییییی آی نقیییی
آیییی نقـــییییی آیی نقیییییی آی نقیییی
به رحلت جانگوز امام امت به سیاسیون فسیلی تو غربت
به بیوه های باکلاس پلاسیده تو دیسکو
به بحث های روشنفکری تو
به غیرت مردهای اون کاره به زنان مدافعان حقوق مرد
به انقلاب رنگی از تو تلویزیون به 3 درصد جمعیت کتابخون
تورو به شعارای آبکی و تو خالی نقی تورور به این جماعت حالی به حالی!
صبح زنده باد میگند شب مرده باد به قهرمون های قصه های خیالی
آییی نقی
حالا که مهدی خوابه ما تورو صدا میزنیم آی نقی
تو ظهور کن که ما آماده تو کفنیم آی نقی
آیییی نقـــییییی آیی نقیییییی آی نقیییی
آیییی نقـــییییی آیی نقیییییی آی نقیییی

و مصاحبه تهران ریویو با شاهین نجفی

خواننده ای آگاه  و متفکر
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HlrQb7I4mg&feature=related
و اجرای بسیار زیبای زنده در شبکه صدای آمریکا - نوروز 1389
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUaUny_zcaw&feature=related

The Enbridge Northern Gate PipelinesA Disastrous Environmental Projectand Detrimental to First Nation People
Mahin Milani

The Enbridge Northern Gate Project is a 5.5 billion proposal to build two pipelines (1.170 Kilometres) from Alberta’s tar sands (which consist of a thick, tarry substance) to British Colombia’s coast at Kitimat. The diluted bitumen would then be transported to refineries in USA, Asia or elsewhere by super tankers. This project proposed by The Enbridge Inc. is not tenable because it has disastrous environmental effects, it impacts the First Nations people in an extremely negative way and lastly it is not an effective economic decision.
Canadian tar sands are amongst the dirtiest oils in the world and their quality exceeds the
safe limit that scientists have suggested for human health. On 23 February 2012, European Union Delegates voted on new regulations on crude oil imports and have rated Alberta’s tar sand oil with 23 per cent more points than regular crude and in result it failed to pass as a sustainable oil to import into European countries (Colangelo Par. 2). In USA, President Barak Obama refused delivering Alberta’s oil sands to the States “after Nebraska farmers and environmentalists raised concerns” (McClelland Par. 2). The increase of the refineries to process sand oil is also a problem as the “synthetic heavy crude produced from tar sands is laden with more toxics than conventional oil” (“The Spread of Oil Sands” Sec.2, Par.1). On 25 July, 2010, 60 percent of people in Kalamazoo River in Michigan area were affected by four million liters of the Enbridge Pipelines diluted bitumen spilled into the river which emitted benzene and other chemicals (Swift, et al. 7).

It is clear from these studies that Canadian tar sand oil is extremely dangerous. However, that in itself is not an argument against the construction of the pipelines. But there is a high risk of spilling involved in the operation presented by the Enbridge, because the pipelines would traverse dangerous areas (which also turn out to be rich in fish bearing habitat). A tank farm at Kitimat would transfer the oil into large super tankers that cross 185 kilometres inside the ocean to reach unpredictably hazardous straits and entrances. “The route poses many navigational challenges for large vessels, even under ideal conditions” (Swift, et al. 3), and as large oil tankers don’t have the experience to navigate inside central and northern waters of British Columbia, the risk of spillage is that more higher. Moreover, the steam injection process required to liquefy and dilute the tarry oil sand for a better flow in the pipelines, creates a higher probability of spills. This process creates friction and promotes erosion because the diluted bitumen contains 15 to 20 times more organic acid and 5 to 10 times more sulphur than traditional crude, releasing three times more greenhouse gas emission, and the pipelines carry a significant amount of quartz, silicates, and “sediments composed of pyrite and aluminosilicates per day” (Swift, et al. 6). Thus it appears that the project proposed by Enbridge presents a real risk of spillage of the dangerous tar sand oil.

Not only oil spill is inevitable, but the cleaning of the spills also presents extreme difficulties, because there are inadequate measures and possibilities to find the source of the leak and to clean up the areas contaminated with diluted bitumen. As past accidents have shown, this is no easy feat. For example “the 3 million litre Enbridge spill in Michigan required more than 2000 personnel, over 45 kilometres of boom, 175 heavy spill response trucks, 43 boats, and 48 oil skimmers” (Swift, et al. 8). 21 leaks in USA and 14 in Canada (the largest about 80,000 litres in May of 2011), were reported in the first year of operation of TransCanada’s Keystone pipeline (Swift, et al. 8 col. 2). The leak detection systems have failed in many cases and it is not clear how long the pipelines have been leaking. “Significant geotechnical difficulties” and “unstable parts” along pipelines trajectory is another imperative issue that broaches oil spilling is inevitable and the habitat of people and fish is in rigorous risk. Landslides, fire, rain storm, flood, avalanches and explosion are hazards which require vigilant conducted visual assessments, and past incidents indicate that Enbridge has had limited evaluation of some areas such as a pipe line in Symoetx where a landslide in 2002 “disrupted natural gas service to Kitimat, Terrace, and Prince Rupert and caused CAD$27.5 million“ to local economy (Swift, et al. 12). Consequently, delivering the dirtiest oil in the world by the Enbridge pipeline project, with an erosive diluting system and lack of adequate possibilities to find the leaking source and cleaning area would be a devastating decision for the environment and the health of persons involved.

The pipelines project also impacts the First Nations peoples in an extremely negative way. They strongly depend on nature, notably fishing, and strongly tied to cultural traditions. So if their lands and waters get contaminated by oil spills, their life style will be thoroughly and dramatically altered. In numerous gatherings, rallies, and in the first public Joint Review Panel hearing where 4300 people were registered to talk about The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, First Nations peoples have opposed the project (”Northern Gateway Pipeline” Par.4). Samuel Robinson, a hereditary chief from Kitimat Village, voiced his opposition: "’The area is rich with seafood, halibut, cod, fur-bearing animals…It worries me that all this will be lost or destroyed when there is a spill…Experience knows it will happen’ " (“Hundreds Pack Northern” Sec. 2 Par.3).

First Nations Land claims and rights also might be violated by this project and would lead to social unrest. As Deborah Yedlin points out there is no agreement regarding land claims with British Columbian First Nations before the project could proceed (Yedlin 12), as Jackie Thomas of the Saik’uz First Nation declares: “’Our five nations hold more than 25 per cent of this proposed pipeline route in our territory, and we will never allow it to be built’” (Stoymenoff “Naomi Klein and” Par.6). Yedlin explains that the Crown would be responsible to see if First Nations rights and livelihood is affected. She remarks that in case of spillage “other places must be found where the traditional life can be pursued” (Yedlin 12). In other words aboriginal people might be forced to leave their ancestral land and go else where because of the pipeline project or resign to remain in an environment devastated by the pipelines.
Division and hostility between different First Nations could in addition occur as the Enbridge Inc. is trying to satisfy some of them by promising considerable guarantees. “Embridge is offering up a 10 per cent stake” (“B.C. First Nation” Sec.2 Par.10) to the aboriginal groups that are signed on with the Enbridge. Elmer Derrick, Gitxsan hereditary chief is expecting $7 million of net profit of the project due to an agreement with Enbridge. Janet Holder, the Enbridge executive in charge of Northern Gateway said other agreements have been endorsed even though the numbers couldn’t be revealed because of confidentiality clauses (“B.C. First Nation” Sec.2 Par.8 &10). On the contrary, many First Nations peoples have denied Embridges’s claim. The president of the Haida Nation Council, Guujaaw, denounced - in a letter to Vancouver Sun blog and QCI Observer - the Enbridge’s claims of engaging in “’relationship building’” with the coastal First Nations. Additionally, in an email sent to the Joint Review Panel dated Dec. 20 he wrote: "Enbridge has provided deliberately misleading and false information claiming that [it] has built relationships with the Haida." (Stoymenoff “Haida Nation Leader” Sec.2 Par.2). While 130 Nations across British Columbia have endorsed Save the Fraser Declaration vowing to protect unceded territories from the pipeline (“Haida Nation Leader” Par.5), the Enbridge’s offer to some First Nation leaders could create hostility and division between different nations.

Finally, the Pipelines Gateway Project is not an effective economic decision. The main argument for the claims that the project is creating jobs is invalid. If completed, pipe lines would provide 1150 full time jobs in Alberta and British Columbia (Northern Gateway Pipeline” Sec.1 Par.4). For 5.5 billion dollars investment in the project, this number of jobs is minimal. In addition, the pipelines which traverse 785 rivers and streams could shatter the commercial fishery and nature tourism which contributes up to a value of $550 million Canadian dollars (Swift, et al. 11). If Canada refined its row bitumen in Canadian refineries before exporting it, it would gain a great economic profit. By turning to foreign refineries, it is “foregoing an opportunity to add value to 365 million barrels a year” (Hume Par.9). Stephen Hume argues that “refining Infrastructure” would create more enduring benefit for Canadians and suggests that as Alberta’s economy is blooming, there are other regions with a lot of capacity for enhancing or building new refineries and creating long term jobs along with stimulating economy (Hume Par.4). Subsequently, it would be economically advantageous to transfer the crude oil to refineries inside the country, and to export the manufactured oil products with higher prices. If the environment is protected, salmon which is “a central component of the province’s ecology, culture, economy, and social fabric” (Swift, et al. 11) wouldn’t be drastically affected by the spill of Northern Gateway pipeline’s diluted bitumen, and It could continue to generate an important economy. Jobs could also be created in other more beneficial and healthier sectors such as local fish and agricultural domains, in healthy and organic food industries and so on. By creating local products we would generate increasingly more local jobs, we would have more control on the production quality, we would spend less for transporting the imported products and we would be less concerned about the global crises which hit time to time the world economy and degrade national security. By building local refineries and by creating local production possibilities, we would help generating more long-term jobs and a more secure economy.

This project is not acceptable because of its disastrous environmental effects, its extremely negative impacts on the First Nations peoples and its counter productive economic aspect. Therefore it is not in the interest of Canadians and one can only hope that the ongoing debates until 2013 will consider aboriginal peoples, environmentalist concerns, as well as the complex economic situation with sufficient details to make an appropriate decision.

Works Cited
“B.C. First Nation backs Northern Gateway pipeline”.
CBC News Dec. 2011 Web. 2 Dec 2011
http://www.fatnewspaper.com/b.c.-first-nation-backsnortherngatewaypipeline.1.27516.html
Colangelo, Jeremy. “EU oil sands vote ends in stalemate“.
The Brock Press. Feb. 27, 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2012
http://www.brockpress.com/news/external-news/eu-oil-sands-vote-ends-in-stalemate-1.2799837
“Hundreds pack Northern Gateway pipeline hearing”.
CBC News. Jan 10, 2012. Web. 10 Jan 2012 Read 1745 comments1745
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/01/10/bc-northern-gateway-enbridge-kitimat.html
Hume, Stephen. Keep jobs in Canada: Build refineries for oil sands
Vancouver Sun. Web. 30 Jan 2012
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Keep+jobs+Canada+Build+refineries+oilsands/6072415/story.html#ixzz1mgFcmPh6
McClelland, Colin, and Jeremy Van Loon “Obama Has Left Door Open for Keystone”.
Bloomberg. Feb 2012. Web. 7 Feb. 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-07/obama-has-left-door-open-for-keystone-

Nikiforuk, Andrew. “Why Keystone Pipeline Will Weaken the US”.
The Thee. Web. 27 May 2011
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/05/27/KeystonePipeline/
“Northern Gateway pipeline hearings to start in B.C.”
The Canadian Press. Web. Jan 8, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/08/bc-northern-gateway.html
Stoymenoff, Alexis. “Haida Nation leader outraged over ’libelous’ Enbridge documents”.
The Vancouver Observer. Web. 10 Jan 2010
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/sustainability/2012/01/10/haida-nation-leader-outraged-over-%E2%80%9Clibelous%E2%80%9D-enbridge-documents
Stoymenoff, Alexis. “Naomi Klein and First Nations leaders unite at anti-pipeline forum”.
The Vancouver Observer. Web. 2 Dec. 2011
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/sustainability/2011/12/02/naomi-klein-and-first-nations-leaders-unite-anti-pipeline-forum
Swift , Anthony, Nathan Lamphers, Susan Casey, lef Kowitz, Katie Terhume, and Danielle Droitxch. “Pipe line and Tanker problem”. Web. PDF. Nov. 2011
NRDC Natural Resources Defence Council
http://www.nrdc.org/international/files/PipelineandTankerTrouble.pdf
“The Spread of Oil Sands”. Dirty Oil Sand
http://dirtyoilsands.org/thedirt/article/the_spread_of_oil_sands

Yedlin, Deborah. ”Northern Gateway pipeline reveals risks of unsettled land claims”.
Calgary herald. Postmedia News. Web. 17 Feb. 2012
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Nobel+laureates+write+anti+oilsands+letter/6167539/story.html#ixzz1mgGHULXq

Gheimé Polo
قیمه پلو

Azadeh
My grandmother’s was a legend. My mom’s and my aunts’ were decent, but couldn’t compare with grandma’s. King of beef stews, it’s cooked with yellow lentils and a mysterious sauce whose make up escapes me to this day, and when it’s all ready to be served with saffron rice, grandma tops it up with homemade fries. Fries, yes, it’s found its way into or rather unto a very traditional Iranian meal.

But it’s not the image of grandma’s spacious living room, nor herself, bent over numerous pots in the kitchen that suddenly took hold of me, when the scent of the store-bought Gheimé Polo rose from the aluminium container. It was the image of blood, of tall women in black tchadors, of incessant and suffocating cries and weeping.

In the excruciating summer heat of Tehran, as the air heavy with pollution mimics Karbala’s desert, and tall cement walls give life to images of bloodied martyrs, it’s not difficult to relive the death of Imam Hossein and his 72 disciples back in the 7th century. Ordinarily empty mosque yards are filled with people dressed in dark, with darkness in the eyes, in their voices and even in the way they move. Wide black curtains divide the space between men’s and women’s quarters, but everything and everyone mixes in the sweeping wave of weeping that effaces all individuality. Ô, thou, fierce and victorious force of mourning!

I remember thirst, I remember constant search for yet another cup of water. And I remember long queues for Gheimé Polo distributed by mosques and other “benefactors”, because, of course, mourning is inseparable from pity, poverty, and delicious Gheimé Polo.

The year 2011
marks the end of
the End of History

http://roarmag.org/2011/10/the-year-2011-marks-the-end-of-the-end-of-history/
by Jérôme E. Roos
on October 23, 2011

When the system forces ordinary people to become revolutionaries, you know you’re no longer at the End of History. You’re at the very edge of it.
The Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions. The Arab Spring. The looming Greek default. The increasingly likely breakup of the eurozone. The second coming of the global financial crisis. The return with a vengeance of the systemic critique of capitalism. The resounding worldwide call for real democracy. The dramatic rallies against austerity, inequality and neoliberalism in Spain, Greece, Chile and Israel. The riots in Athens, London and Rome. The occupation of Wall Street and the spreading of the movement throughout the US. The mass protests by millions of people in 1,000 cities and 80 countries on October 15. Even the death of Muammar Gaddafi.
The Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions, The Arab Spring, The looming Greek default, The increasingly likely breakup of the euro zone. The second coming of the global financial crisis, The return with a vengeance of the systemic critique of capitalism, The resounding worldwide call for real democracy, The dramatic rallies against austerity, inequality and neoliberalism in Spain, Greece, Chile and Israel. The riots in Athens, London and Rome. The occupation of Wall Street and the spreading of the movement throughout the US. The mass protests by millions of people in 1,000 cities and 80 countries on October 15. Even the death of Muammar Gaddafi.
All of it points in the direction of a simple but unmistakable truth: 2011 marks the End of the End of History. Beyond the flat horizon of liberal democracy and global capitalism, the events of this year have not only opened up a whole new chapter in the unfolding saga of mankind, but they have laid the very foundation for an endless procession of chapters beyond that. What is being shattered is not so much the democratic capitalist system as such, but rather the Utopian belief that this system is the only way to organize social life in the eternal pursuit of freedom, equality and happiness.
Almost twenty years ago, following the total collapse of the Soviet Union and the final discrediting of state communism, the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama conjectured that “we may be witnessing … not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” Two decades after the publication of The End of History and the Last Man, Fukuyama’s thesis seems more shaky than ever before.
This is not to repeat the endless Leftist cliché that neoliberalism is dead — as Slavoj Žižek pointed out, the ideology already died two deaths, first as tragedy following the 9/11 terror attacks, and then as farce following the global financial collapse of 2008 — but rather to point out that neoliberalism as such has finally been revealed for what it always already was: a zombie ideology wrapped around the face of humanity, just like Matt Taibbi’s famous vampire squid, “relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”

The Neoliberal Emperor
Has No Clothes
While 2001 and 2008 marked, respectively, the political and economic deaths of neoliberalism, 2011 marks the End of the End of History. For it is only now becoming clear to the people of the world that, for the past twenty years, we have simply been living a lie. Indeed, the implicit popular consent that once legitimized democratic capitalism now appears to be coming unraveled faster than the financial Ponzi scheme that sustained the illusion of its moral superiority. After twenty years of stagnant wages, rapidly growing inequality, rampant youth unemployment and widespread social alienation, the bursting of the global credit bubble has finally laid bare the naked essence of the system.
Democratic free-market capitalism is not what we were told it was: as recent years have amply demonstrated, it is neither free nor democratic. Wars have been waged in the name of Big Oil despite overwhelming popular opposition. Tax cuts have been made in the name of Big Money despite an overwhelming budget deficit. And now, failing banks are being rescued and draconian budget cuts pushed through in the name of Big Finance, despite both overwhelming popular opposition and incontrovertible evidence that it is only making the deficit worse. The system has ceased to make sense. Its internal contradictions are eating it up from within. And humanity is finally waking up to this reality.
So today, an entire generation of young people, deprived of hope and opportunity, is rising up to contest the absurd notion that this disastrous state of affairs somehow constitute the culmination of “mankind’s ideological evolution.” Is this really the best we can do? Is this the Utopian world order that Fukuyama envisioned when he decried the eternal victory of liberal democracy and global capitalism over its invisible enemies? With failing banks, bankrupt states and runaway private debt, Fukuyama’s ideal world has certainly started to look a lot more bland now that the credit-fueled consumption spree that underpined it has crashed headlong into its own inevitable finality.
The magic is gone. The spell is broken. And what the people of the world are trying to make clear to those in power is that we know. We know that the system is rotten at the core. We know that its alleged successes do not hold up to scrutiny. We know that most of its grand achievements — from global capital markets to the European single currency — were built on financial and institutional quicksand. And we know the whole damn thing is about to collapse like a house of cards. From Tahrir to Times Square, from Madrid to Madison, from Santiago to Syntagma, we know that the neoliberal emperor has no clothes.

Gaddafi and Fukuyama:
On the Wrong Side of History
One of the most graphic portrayals of the end of the End of History is the bloody demise of Muammar Gaddafi. While skeptics are entirely right to be disgusted by NATO’s imperial campaign in Libya, many on the Left still fail to see the enormous symbolism behind the fall of the Brother Leader. Gaddafi, in a way, was the ultimate embodiment of the End of History. Having come to power as a pan-Arab socialist revolutionary in the late 1960s, he ended up as one of the world’s most successful capitalists. While he continued to rhetorically lament the evils of Western imperialism, he appeared more than willing to offer his country’s spoils to the same neo-colonial powers he so avidly derided.
According to a 2008 report in the Financial Times, Gaddafi “extolled the virtues of capitalist reforms”. Treating Libya like his family business, he cozied up to Big Oil, doling out lucrative contracts to Western corporations like Eni and Shell. He then let the profits accumulate into his privately-owned “sovereign” wealth fund while enlisting Wall Street to recycle this capital surplus for additional profit. In the process, while the Libyan people remained crippled by chronic underdevelopment, Gaddafi siphoned $168 billion of the nation’s riches abroad. No wonder the West was suddenly so happy to be his friend.
Yet what is most revealing about Gaddafi is not his sudden conversion from socialist liberator to capitalist oppressor, nor his close ties with the neoliberal establishment of the West. What is most telling is his personal connection with Francis Fukuyama. Back in 2006-’08, Fukuyama was part of a select group of world-leading intellectuals who were enlisted — and generously paid — by the Monitor Group, a US-based PR firm advised by former MI6 and CIA directors, to help polish Gaddafi’s image in the West as part of a massive charm offensive designed to help legitimize Libya’s foray into the End of History. According to secret documents leaked by former Libyan officials, “Fukuyama made two visits to Libya (14-17 August 2006 and 12-14 January 2007).”
He delivered a lecture at the Greek Book Centre in Tripoli and taught a class on Libya at Johns Hopkins University. He also offered a lecture, entitled “My Conversations with the Leader”, which marked “the first time that The Green Book has been required reading for students at one of the leading public policy schools in the world.” Apparently, not just us, but Fukuyama himself believed Gaddafi to be the embodiment of the End of History. His overthrow, therefore, even if it would never have succeeded without the military might of the imperial West, completely undermines Fukuyama’s thesis. After all, if we had truly arrived at the End of History, how could the author of this thesis so blatantly end up on the wrong side of History himself?

The Collapse of the Eurozone
as the End of the End
But Gaddafi was not Fukuyama’s only historical “mistake”. In response to allegations that the End of History was a purely Americentric argument, Fukuyama in 2007 wrote an article for the Guardian retroactively claiming that “The End of History was never linked to a specifically American model of social or political organisation … I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States.” Judging from the fate of the European Union, it turns out that Fukuyama, ironically, ended up being right in the wrong way.
As the New York Times wrote the other day, “the euro was a political project meant to unite Europe after the Soviet collapse in a sphere of collective prosperity that would lead to greater federalism. Instead, the euro seems to be pulling Europe apart … [t]here is a tension in the political system and doubt about democratic institutions that we have not experienced since the fall of the Soviet Union.” Europe’s deep economic integration, fully in line with the End of History philosophy, produced a situation so crisis-ridden that the future of the world economy now hinges on the fate of a single EU member state — one that only makes up 2 percent of the Union’s total GDP: Greece.
But Greece is only the canary in the coalmine. It is a symptom, not the cause, of Europe’s crisis. When Greece default, it will only be a matter of time before investors lose faith in Italy and Spain. Both are considered too big to fail — but also too big to bail. The European rescue fund is not big enough to save them, and Germany and France are stuck in a deadlock over how to enlarge it. At the same time, Europe’s insolvent banking system is on the verge of collapse. A Greek defaults will tip countless banks into bankruptcy, forcing the governments of the core to dole out massive bailouts once again. This, in turn, will further aggravate their sovereign debt levels and hence their credit ratings, bringing the “Greek” debt crisis right into the very heartland of European capitalism.
The bottomline, in other words, is that there is no easy way out of this crisis – not even the oft-lauded Eurobonds, as Martin Wolf recently pointed out for the Financial Times. The euro, that grand elite project that was meant to be the very pinnacle of European integration, is faltering. In the process, the EU’s post-ideological technocratic institutions have lost the last shreds of legitimacy they had left. The edifice is falling apart, and frankly speaking, our leaders do not even have a clue what to do about it. Europe’s crisis, at the end of the day, is the world’s crisis. And it is far from a merely economic one: at rock bottom, we are facing what Joseph Stiglitz has called the ideological crisis of capitalism. This is obviously a far cry from the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution”.

The Crisis of Capitalism
and the Return of the Repressed
It is no surprise, therefore, that 2011 has seen the comeback — with a vengeance — of the systemic critique of capitalism. In recent weeks, leading free-market publications like the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Business Insider and Fortune have all admitted that Karl Marx might actually have been right about capitalism’s tendency to self-destruct. The reason for this sudden revival of the Marxian critique of political economy is twofold: first, the dawning realization among elites that we are about to spiral into another Great Depression. And second, the systematic repression of the radical imagination that Fukuyama’s post-ideological world brought about.
In this respect, a direct line can be drawn from Margaret Thatcher’s conversation-killing slogan, “there is no alternative“, to the neoliberal policy response to the financial crisis. While the bankers have been doling out record bonuses, the rest of the population is being told that there simply is no alternative to draconian austerity measures. The ideological narrative is the same everywhere: “we’re all in this together; we all need to tighten our belts,” but the implicit message is really: “do not dare to imagine an alternative.” Yet as Matt Taibbi recently pointed out, a tiny 0.1 percent tax on all trades in stocks and bonds and a 0.01 percent tax on all trades of derivative could pay for the entire US bailouts, rendering much the “necessary” belt-tightening unnecessary. That is a credible alternative right there. Why is it not being discussed

Back in 2009, Fukuyama published an article in Newsweek with the triumphant title “History is still over“, in which he asserted that, despite the fact that “the crisis began on Wall Street – the heart of global capitalism — … the legitimacy of the global system may have been bruised, [but] it did not break.” Fast-forward two years and witness the burning streets of London, Rome and Athens; the peaceful occupation of Wall Street, Puerta del Sol, Syntagma, and hundreds of other squares around the world; the unprecedented global day of action on October 15, with protests in almost 1,000 cities in over 80 countries. Witness the anger. The frustration, The indignation. It is here. The legitimacy is breaking. Fukuyama, it appears, was cheering just a wee bit too soon.
In a Freudian sense, we are witnessing the return of the repressed. If you tell people for two decades that there is no alternative to the world in which they live, and if in the meantime you take away their income, their rights, their public services, and their last-remaining shreds of dignity, you can expect that psychological repression of revolutionary potential to come out in some other form sooner or later. If you repress the coherent emancipatory ideology of the masses, as the End of History was meant to do, you literally end up with the incoherent and a-political London riots. In this respect, the most important thing the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions could have done was to help remind humanity that there actually is an alternative to the status quo — that there does exist some “outside” to unfettered global capitalism.

The Rise of the Indignant
and the Crisis of Democracy
The Arab revolutions embolden the alienated youth of Europe and America to start dreaming again, to reclaim their radical imagination in the face of one of the greatest legitimating crises in the history of liberal democracy. As a critical consciousness makes its way back into the mainstream discourse, the cultural hegemony of neoliberalism finds itself under threat anew. The first signs of this emergent critical consciousness began to appear in Madrid on May 15. A few days later, the BBC reported that an Egypt-style rally was growing in Spain. Over the next couple of weeks, hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life rallied on a nightly basis around the country as the indignados movement spread throughout Europe.
On September 17, the Spanish 15-M movement culminated into a global day of action against the banks and the occupation of Wall Street, called for by the Canadian anti- consumerist magazine Adbusters. The Wall Street protest subsequently helped catathe next global day of action, called for by the Spanish protesters on October 15. Under the common banner “united for global change”, the worldwide resistance grew to truly unprecedented proportions, with simultaneous protests taking place in 1,000 cities in over 80 countries. With his naive declaration that “the legitimacy of the global system did not break,” Fukuyama once again finds himself on the wrong side of history.
After all, if liberal democracy is really the culmination of human ideological evolution, how come millions of people are taking to the streets all over the world demanding something different? If representativedemocracy is the very pinnacle, why are these young people chanting “they do not represent us!”, and why do they cry out for a real democracy instead? As the massive movements in Israel and Chile demonstrate, the phenomenon cannot be reduced to the crisis alone, for even their booming economies could not stop the tide of indignation from flooding into its streets. In truth, the problem runs much deeper. As the indignados like to chant, “it’s not the crisis, it’s the system.”
Zygmunt Bauman put his finger on the crux of the problem: while politics has remained national, power has all but evaporated into global flows. Technological change and neoliberal reforms have conspired to create a situation where democratically elected governments no longer have the power to transform their promises into policies . We end up with a situation where voting is no longer about what policies our governments should put into practice, but rather about who should put into practice the policies demanded by the financial sector. To call that democracy seems preposterous . The rise of the indignant is nothing but the collective realization that liberal representative democracy, under the conditions of deep economic integration, is not really liberal or representative at all. The End of History, rather than solidifying democracy as the final form of human government, has completely undermined it.

The Edge of History
and the Return of
Contentious Politics
The End of the End of History is not the same as the end of neoliberalism. As we saw before, zombie ideologies have their way of roaming about beyond their expiry date. As long as there are capitalists (or wanna-be capitalists), there will always be one form or another of capitalist philosophy. The End of the End of History is not so much about eradicating capitalism’s individualist worldview, which is impossible without resorting to the type of repressive state tactics we are trying to overcome, as it is about the return of contentious politics as the defining feature of social life. In other words, the End of the End of History is not so much about overcoming political struggle as about the realization that we can, by definition, never overcome political struggle. As long as there is injustice, there will be struggle — and since there will always be injustice, there will always be struggle.
The End of History, therefore, is neither possible nor desirable. The longing for a final stage of institutional and ideological development, in which disagreement and conflict have been banished from the realm of social reality, is either purely totalitarian or purely Utopian. While certain Utopian longings may inspire us to soar to ever greater heights as a species, we always have to remember that no social order is given forever. Our Utopia must forever remain the spiritual desire that propels us to action, but we have to embrace the fact that it can never become a reality. History simply never ends. As the neo-Gramscian scholar Stephen Gill put it, “history is always in the making, in a complex and dialectical interplay between agency, structure, consciousness and action.” Or, as Subcomandante Marcos worded it slightly more poetically, “the struggle is like a circle: you can start anywhere, but it never stops.”
In an excellent op-ed in the Guardian the other day, Jonathan Jones looked at a picture of Occupy Wall Street and makes a striking observation:
This is a photograph of a turning point in history, not because the Occupy movement will necessarily succeed (whatever success might be) but because it has revealed the profoundly new possibilities of debate in a world that so recently seemed to agree about economic fundamentals. Occupy Wall Street and the global movement it is inspiring may yet prove to be an effective call for change, or a flash in the pan. That is not the point. Nor does it even matter if the protest is right or wrong. What matters is that unfettered capitalism, a force for economic dynamism that seemed unassailable, beyond reproach or reform, a monster we learned to be grateful for, suddenly finds its ugliness widely commented on, exposed among the lights of Times Square. The emperor of economics has no clothes.
“This is an unbelievable moment,” he continues. “Pinch yourself.” For 2011, with all its crises and revolutions, marks what Slavoj Žižek, in his speech in Zuccotti Park, called “the awakening from a dream that is turning into a nightmare.” It marks the return of contentious politics. And, as such, it marks the End of the End of History. Not that History ever stopped — we just got confused for a while by the collapse of capitalism’s arch-nemesis, and thought it did. But the fact that History is still in-the-making is being captured in newspapers headlines, in powerful photographs, and in the words of a simple middle-class lady in Greece during the 48-hour strike of October: “I have never been a leftist,” she said, “but they’ve pushed us to become extremists.” When the system forces ordinary people to become revolutionaries, you know you’re no longer at the End of History. You’re at the very edge of it.

About Zahra’s Paradise

So a Persian writer, an Arab artist and a Jewish editor walk into a room…
Sounds like the beginning of a bad joke. Actually, that’s something like the start of this unusual editorial adventure, the first of its kind. Here for your reading pleasure is an online, serial webcomic in English, Farsi, Arabic, French, Italian, Spanish, and Dutch—with more joining on the horizon. First Second books proudly presents Zahra’s Paradise by Amir and Khalil, together with Casterman in French and Dutch, Rizzoli Lizard in Italian, and Norma Editorial in Spanish.
Set in the aftermath of Iran’s fraudulent elections of 2009, Zahra’s Paradise is the fictional story of the search for Mehdi, a young protestor who has disappeared in the Islamic Republic’s gulags.

Mehdi has vanished in an extrajudicial twilight zone where habeas corpus is suspended. What stops his memory from being obliterated is not the law. It is the grit and guts of a mother who refuses to surrender her son to fate and the tenacity of a brother—a blogger—who fuses culture and technology to explore and explode absence: the void in which Mehdi has vanished.

Zahra’s Paradise weaves together a composite of real people and events. As the world witnessed what could no longer be kept from view, through YouTube videos, on Twitter and in blogs, so this story came to be and had to be told.The author Amir is an Iranian-American human rights activist, journalist and documentary filmmaker. He has lived and worked in the United States, Canada, Europe and Afghanistan. His essays and articles have appeared far and wide in the press.Khalil’s work as a fine artist has been much praised. He sculpts and creates ceramics and has been cartooning since he was very young. Zahra’s Paradise is his first graphic novel.
Amir and Khalil have long dreamed up projects together, but Zahra’s Paradise draws on their talents as though they’ve been preparing for it all their lives—and through it, they answer the calling of their times.

The authors have chosen anonymity for obvious political reasons.

[The writer Amir and the artist Khalil (both have chosen anonymity for political reasons) began publishing the webcomic Zahra’s Paradise online in February 2010. This week, First Second Books will publish Zahra’s Paradise as a graphic novel. Jadaliyya interviewed Amir and Khalil on the occasion of the book’s publication.]

See Zahra’s Paradise offical site:
http://www.zahrasparadise.com/lang/en/about

and Inteview with the writer and artist, and two parts of animated book by Jadaliyya جدلیّه

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/2607/zahras-paradise_an-interview-with-amir-and-khalil

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/2679/zahras-paradise_part-two--

A History of Change II:
the Question of Cities
Occupy Vancouver Blog
November 17,
Steve Collis
http://occupyvancouvermedia.com/2011/11/19/a-history-of-change-ii-the-question-of-cities/#comments
November 17, as perhaps as many as 30,000 people marched through downtown NYC in support of OWS, here in Vancouver (as in many North American cities) a smaller group marched from the VAG along Georgia Street to the Royal Centre building, where Brookfield Properties have second-floor offices. Brookfield, as many now know, “own” Zuccotti Park, the once-and-future home of OWS in lower Manhattan; they, along with other members of the corporate 1%, pressured billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg to evict OWS this past Tuesday morning.

In Vancouver, we tried to bring the fight to Brookfield.
This one’s for you, OWS: our sign on the security desk of the Royal Centre.

Brookfield places the issue of the Occupy Movement in an interesting light: a Canadian-based company, “one of North America’s largest commercial real estate companies,” as their website trumpets, one of whose “holdings” became the epicenter of, first, a local act of civil disobedience in NYC, and second, of a global movement for social, economic, and political change. Thus far, the Occupy Movement has been characterized by this duality: it is a movement of particular cities, particular urban “public” spaces, and it is a movement of the global city, writ large.

“Occupy represents not just the taking of space in our cities, but reclaiming the terms of debate in wider society. As the placard at Occupy Wall Street says ‘Apathy is dead.’ This tiny slice of pavement is a catalyst for argument….” (Hannah Borna & Alistair Alexander, The Guardian, November 15).

I can understand why the Occupy Movement is centered upon the struggle for public space in city centers—why the city is, in many ways, its focus (cities are, after all, the centers of accumulation and financial trading in capitalism). What is more puzzling is why the debate about the Occupy Movement has been “contained” (by state and media apparatuses) at the level of the city (rather than, say, the level of the Province/State or nation). Noticed any commentary on the movement from those levels of government? Me neither. The silence is telling.

Containing the “public” debate about the Occupy Movement at the civic level allows officials to approach it as a mere question of public “health and safety” and “sanitation” (the grounds civic governments have most commonly cited for the removal of occupations). It reduces the occupations to the level of mere zoning and by-laws—as though it’s just another permit decision along the lines of parades and public sporting celebrations (note the discussion, here in Vancouver, whether the occupation can legitimately displace the Santa Clause Parade, or what effect it will have on Grey Cup celebrations, as though they are comparable spectacles!).
Brookfield enters the issue here too: as a commercial real estate developer, their main interaction with governments is at the level of the city (building permits etc.). But again, hiding behind mere “locality” here is the issue of the global city: Brookfield is active in the contemporary city writ large, Vancouver, Toronto, NYC and beyond—wherever capital is accumulated through property speculation. It builds the spaces the corporate 1% inhabits, and profits along with them.

If higher levels of government entered the debate about the occupations, they would thereby acknowledge that the movement is in fact a provincial/state or national issue. It would take its place beside other “big” issues states have to deal with. It would no longer be a mere question of “health and safety,” but a question necessarily about the very “state of the union.”

But something else is revealed here: the redundancy of those higher levels of government. New, proto-national and transnational “governments” are being given expression in the Occupy Movement as mayors and police forces enter into inter-city discussions about how to deal with the multitudinous occupations (as Oakland mayor Jean Quan recently revealed), just as the Occupy Movement itself has inter-city committees sharing information and organizing expressions of solidarity between cities.

What does all this tell us? It’s probably still too early to tell for sure, and I would love to hear others’ thoughts (once again, this is an issue I will return to in a future blog), but it suggests two, probably fairly obvious, points of entry for further thought.

First, in terms of the “federated” structure of civic governments, it’s clear that the task of enforcing the compliance of the 99% with the dictates of the 1% is demanding the coordination of policing at a level, and in a way, we have not really seen before in North America. Police tactics have been increasingly “paramilitarized,” and we are increasingly staring in the face of a coordinated global “state police” (and police state) whose main focus is going to be dealing with civil disobedience.

Second, in terms of the Occupy Movement itself, resistance and civil disobedience is similarly taking on a decentered, “federated” structure where tactics and resources are shared and expressions of intra-city solidarity are as important as inner city ones. This is, in part, to say that if civic governments and police forces can “federate” to coordinate their activities, then so can and do the various occupations—both of them, note, operating outside the sphere of the normal centralized state apparatus.

Another way of putting this: at the level of civic governments, the state’s dirty work is being downloaded and outsourced (as it almost always is); at the level of the occupations, well, this is a revolution—we are building the new society in the shell of the old. That shell is resounding increasingly hollow, as it throws more and more police into the echoing streets.

We are indeed “occupying everywhere.” But the fact that those “everywheres” are particular cities is crucial—because the city is where we gather to debate what is and is not a just society. And this debate is not simply a matter of elections (Oh Vancouver, this day of our own civic election): it’s a matter of a return to where the real “demand for justice” is made—in the agora. I’ll end with this quotation, to which I will return in my next post:

“The concept of the city is oriented towards the question of justice. It is intended to be modeled on the kind of operations that actors engage in during disputes with one another, when they are faced with a demand for justification. This demand for justification is inextricably linked to the possibility of critique. The justification is necessary to back up the critique, or to answer it when it condemns the unjust character of some specific situation” (Boltanski & Chiapello, The New Spirit of Capitalism 22)

—Steve Collis

See Occupy Vancouver Media Nov. 20, 21 and 22
for "HISTORY OF CHANGE III" and "OUR END IS OUR BEGINNING"
AT:
http://occupyvancouvermedia.com/