BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Nik

Listed below are comments made by Nik between Wednesday, 23rd July 2008 and Thursday, 29th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Scientists v Politicians: Round 3 11:22am on 29 Oct 2009 We need to de-mystify all the hype about drugs and alcohol. Take alcohol for example, take the case of US states where alcohol is prohibited even up to 21 years old. 15 and 14 year old kids try to send their 21 years-and-1-day old cousin to the shop to buy whole cases of beer for their parties and get pissed to extreme points. A percentage of them are already alcoholics by the age of 21. My country is the birthplace of wine. Alcohol is no "mystic" experience, it is something on the everyday family lunch-table, not 1 bottle, 1 little glass of wine or now often beer which is seen as more digestive. When I was 9-10 years old I was curius. My father explained to me that alcohol is ok for adults, but bad for the development of children (stops height-growth, he exaggerated but that works well for young boys!) and then gave me a little sip to taste it and satisfy my curiosity. He never needed to lock a bottle, alcohol was always in the fridge and in the cupboards. There was no hype about it. Once I had bought a little can of beer at a school excursion as there was no coke in the shop (and did not like sprite...), no classmate thought of it as particularly cool and a teacher that saw me joked "hey, sailor, I hope you only had this one!" but did not stop me as I explained the shop had run out of coke etc. Did I become an alcoholic? Far from it. Our society has an extremely low percentage of alcoholics despite alcohol omnipresence.

We really need a cool, uncomplexed approach towards alcohol and the same towards drugs right from the very young ages - kids listen to music and get impressed since 8 years old. We need to explain the risks and that injecting chemicals in your body is not exactly the most brilliant idea (perhaps showing the before and after... the after being not "horror scenes" and not any "marginal figures" that may actually attract youngsters but scenes of unhealthy people and unattractive people, thus demystifying completely the use of drugs, making it non-hype, a kind of lousy-kitch thing to do, not a kind of forbidden thing.
24 hours with Ubuntu 2:21pm on 28 Oct 2009 I have just installed the 9.04 version of Ubuntu in my laptop and this weekend will install the brand new 9.10 Coala Version. Satisfied? Hmm it takes time, there are things to solve, for example my laptops' touchpad became overspeedy and oversensitive and buttons are pressed almost automatically (that would not be a problem with a normal mouse). I already had to to go down to basic "command lines" to solve 2-3 things. But despite being a semi-ignorant, I could do it thanks to lots of info found on the net. Despite the differences in appearence and use I could get used to it, I think it is a very good architecture - afterall we are talking about something totally free... they give you a free donkey, you do not check it in the teeth!

Am I going to use it? Defenitely, but only in parallel to Windows WP and/or 7. I like to use different things. However, the fact that Ubuntu is a hassle-free environment once you set it up means that I will install it in my old laptop along with Skype so that my totally computer-ignorant parents can use it to call me without having to deal with firewalls, anitviruses, update-pop up windows and such...
Acropolis now? 4:00pm on 22 Jun 2009 I will not judge the maintenance procedures followed in British Museum or in other museums like Louvres or Ermitaz, I think specialists there are not exactly into destroying the artifacts! But saying "if you take them you must pay for maintenane" is ridiculous cos Greeks may respond "Ok, we will pay but you will put to court for vandalism, archailogical destruction and theft and... murder (...for French)". And given the fact that we talk about the Parthenon the bill will quickly rise to much more than 200 years of maintenance.

Think of it coldly. In Britain this piece is exhibited as a relic of British colonial past, back in those good ol' days when being British (same for French) alone was a passport of doing anything on will... going in, bribing, destroying, stealing and killing with impunity... and all that not in any colony but even in foreign countries. It is exactly that what the marbles-in-British-museum represent (and not only them but really a long list of artifacts, Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Mexican etc.).

Asking back all these artifacts will practically mean the closure of these museums in their present form, this is not the point, afterall these museums gave birth to modern archaiology. But for some artifacts of higher symbolism it really has to be done. I think Egyptians too are on the same lines, as far as I know their leading archaiologist, Dr. Hawas, does not ask all Egyptian artifacts back but selectively some of really high symbolic importance (mummies for example, it is the minimoum). Greeks are just doing the same thing. It is not any extreme demand, it is the minimoum. And it is not for the money (tourists would anyway visit the Acropolis and the whatever museum next to it - the 1-euro fee is too symbolic in a quite expensive country where cafés serve coffee at 4 euros). And it is not that Britain will lose tourists or something, London never suffered from such a problem, and certainly noone will say "if there are no Parthenon marbles in the British museum I do not go" - you go to a museum not for 1 but for a collection of artifacts, most people who are fond of history & archaiology are more interested by the "smaller items", the others who go to see the known ones are just to say "we saw them" actually are the uninformed and thus not even aware of what "known ones" exist in the museum before going. The loss for the British museum is more of sentimental value, that of loosing a flagship piece of art, understandable but then right now it is not to be addressed: so many years they gave excuses such as maintenance, now that maintenance is there is no other excuse: it is a fitting time to make the gesture.
Acropolis now? 1:50pm on 22 Jun 2009 This should not have deviated from its original discussion but as usual detractors will lead any topic with Greece to the usual Greece & the surrounding Balkans issues (make people fight and talk about the topic).

I am Greek and I do believe the Greek state is a tinpot country. I am not defined by it and my long history - unlike most European nations - is not linked inherently to it and neither to any other state defined by any inbred monarch or any religion. I saw people talking about "Greeks" and "Hellenes" and trying to say that Athenians were... "Attics" as if to try and find the ownership and I laughed (were Londoners really English? Where Allamans, Teutons & Germans Deutch people?).

The Parthenon is a temple, heritage to all the world not just us Greeks. And ancient (and medieval but you just do not know it) Greek culture is a heritage to all the world not just us Greeks, especially to Europe, western and eastern. However, I will be one of the few Greeks that will deviate from the common view and state that the return of the marbles is not exactly our main national scope right now, we have other things pending, e.g. the recognition of the genocide of 1,5 million Greeks in Minor Asia (these are the slaughtered, another 1,5 million fled), the ethnic cleansing of northern Cyprus and the division of the island.

If it really was an issue of outmost importance then we should ask also for the return of Venus of Milo by the French (I think I told you up how French soldiers got the marble by murdering the protesting locals and by breaking the statue - barbarism equal to that of Elgin). It is just that the marbles have become by now some short of symbolism and that is why Greeks are insistent. Realistically we cannot call for the return of all the millions of Greek antiquities from the worlds' museums cos that will practically empty the bulk of their exposed items!

However what about the British? What on earth is so important to them considering that piece of art? They have only to gain than to lose by giving them. Are they afraid that everyone is going to ask things back? So what? Germans gave most things back after WWII and did not feel bad about it, Britain will not do that just because it happened to win the WWII?

There is a difference. A statue is a statue and by nature mobile. A frieze is a frieze and by nature static. You can take out a frieze only by demolishing the whole structure and that is what Elgin did. We know that back then archaiology did not even exist and perhaps barbaric acts like Elgins' gave birth to this field, different eras, different ethics. However today it is universally seen as theft, even British do no doubt about that no matter if later the British Museum paid to get them.

The return of the marbles is an act of higher symbolism and that is why it has to be done. Parthenon since its birth was not a temple for the Athenians but its presence resonated throughout the Hellenic world. Later generations revered the temple. Even in Ottoman times, Greeks respected these temples and you know that by the fact that the British and French could not find local workers to do the job despite proposing to near-famine poor people double and triple wages, finally finding criminals (often, not Greeks) to do the dirty job. It is the theft, the destruction, the barbarism, the murder, the abduction (... in the night!) that lies behind these pieces of art that we have to keep in mind: the return of the marbles will provide that symbolism of justice.
Acropolis now? 10:40pm on 21 Jun 2009 I cannot believe so much hatred against Greeks. Some despicable guy even mentioned

1)the turk-albanian chamides (3-4 villages of 20,000 Albanians, remnants of the turkish-ottoman army who continued banditism in the state of Greece and in WWII collaborated with Italian Fascists and German Nazis to produce a mini-genocide in Epirus - around 60,000 to 80,000 Greeks were killed by their direct and indirect actions as they acted as Italians' militia) - don't believe me...go see "neutral" ally archives on them...

2) the FYROMians (80,000 Slavo-Bulgarians who back in the early 20th century fought for a greater Bulgaria and for ethnically cleansing Macedonia of its original habitants, my grandparents, (go see the neutral Ottoman archives on how many Greeks and how many Slavs lived there), then in WWII despite they were left in peace for 20 years untouched, they collaborated with Nazi Germans and Bulgarians for the extermination of the local populations, then directly jumping to the communist camp where they commited further crimes... finally 60,000 of them were expelled at the end of the civil war as... communists alongside 300,000 Greeks (!!!) so these criminals got away with punishment fleeing as political refugees - 20,000 of them that did not participate in the events were left in Greece despite the ease with which Greeks could get rid of them too... so that much nationalist were Greeks.

So shut up before saying anything and show some respect to the 1 million (1,000,000 souls!) of Greeks that died in the WWII fighting for your war. Bend before them and show your respect.

As for the marbles. Simple as that. Elgin destroyed the monument showing less respect than even the lowliest of archaiological sites scavengers. He stole the marbles. Today you support this act. It is pure barbarism.

The marbles are not British, are not English, are not Elgins and are not of any British national museum. They are products of robbery and destruction. Redeem yourself by giving them. You will not get poorer and we will not get richer. It is nothing like that. It is a matter of order of ethics.
Acropolis now? 12:03pm on 20 Jun 2009 The Acropolis was a temple built to stand eternally. Goths and first christians' looting took its more mobile artifacts but the structure was partially destroyed during an Ottoman-Venecian war were the former used the lead of the column joints for canon balls and the latter bombarded the whole rock. Had it not been for that war incident the Acropole would be there as Iktinos and Kallikratis had built it.

The last story of destruction was Lord Elgin himself. He came down to Ottoman Athens, talked to the local Pasha who showed indifference and gave permission. Then Elgin tried to find personnel but he could not find easily as local Greeks despite being tragically poor or illiterate considered it a sacrilege to touch the "ancient ones", they knew it was theirs and nobody elses. Hence, Elgin had to pay double and triple and bring workers from other places not telling them exactly what they had to do and do the job really quickly before locals (already getting cautious of the works up there) gathered and became aggressive.

The result? You see in the museum and on the temple (no matter if technically concealed). The sculptures were torn and chopped and broken off the temple in haste to be packed in the ship and leave in the... night... Broken sculptures were left on the soil scattered in pieces and only what looked good was taken. Robbers and thieves of art pieces certainly respect more the piece they steal than Lord Elgin.

That is the story behind Elgin. Go learn too the story behind the famous Aphrodite in Louvres. Even worse... the French had to kill people in the streets of the island town to get it. The hands of the statue are missing because the locals grabbed the statue from the French soldiers, the French had it tied in a rope and dropped it down (breaking the one hand) then the locals were dragging it from the other hand and one French officer mad broke the hand by hitting it with his sword. The French had to shoot at locals and kill some of them to get the statue on their ship. Still the scratches from that fight are visible.

Its not merely a matter of national importance for Greeks, it is a matter of the basics of justice. Its a matter of common-law robbery and murder, beyond destruction of art.

Read that so as to know what you are talking about...
European workers for European jobs? 09:59am on 04 Feb 2009 I have worked in the past for a Greek company that took a contract in a French construction site. Most of our workers were contracted on a 3-month basis and paid their wages in Greece (as their delocalisation was not declared - with some hint of tax evasion there too, without knowing details). The company indeed employed - and with very attractive salaries - some local French people for those special tasks that needed good knowledge of the site.

On the one hand, one will say "Hey, it is unfair that these guys do not play under the same rules (wage paid back in the other country, no tax paid locally etc.)". Who can set aside the fact that it is because of that "inequality" that they took the contract, otherwise the site would hire a local subcontractor.

Hence, there is no other responsible here but the contracting company (international group). And what should it do? Insist locally? And remain expensive? It will soon pack up and fly for some eastern asian country. As simple as that. And that will mean multiple times more job cuts for the local workforce. Hence, in a way, the presence of foreign workers in these sites could even mean actually some prolongation of the employment of local people there. On the other hand, these Greek workers lived in that French city and consumed their wage largely there.

That was something well understood by the French workers that on the one hand resented us foreigners, on the other did not talk openly things like "foreigners out", rather focused on issues of , productivity, quality of work, knowledge of site and safety and such (we were better in the 1st, almost equal in the 2nd but really worse in the 3rd compared to them).

There is no ideal solution in the problem. We live in a world were capital decides not people. And once we accepted long ago that, we cannot do anything about such things which are - quite nasty to say this - minor details of that.
Karadzic finally captured 09:10am on 28 Jul 2008 And specifically for the "genocide of Serbrenica" I have only one thing to say: you have absolutely no idea of what happened there. Had you read the exact events there or not? What exactly had happened, what was the exact role of the Dutch forces there and who had dropped the real bombs? Let me add 1-2 comments to place some people here right:

During spring time of 1995 muslim guerillas had repeatedly hit (and notably without previous local provocation) the neighbouring Serbian villages that eventually asked help from the Serbian (Serbobosnian) forces that arrived there and since being better organised and armed quickly re-establishing the order. Given the situation there was not more work there for Serbians. However, there you go! You had those Dutch UN forces there that claimed having created the "security heaven" in Serbrenica thus attracting all disperced muslims guerilla muslims to place there their women and children in order to fight Serbians without the stress of having to protect them - i.e. basically having Dutch forces protecting armed guerillas during civil strife! Then Serbian guerillas arriving around the town and asking Dutch forces to remain neutral and at least asking them to disarm the uncontrolled muslim guerillas - Dutch had only made a feeble effort to disarm the guerillas and thus you had virtually uncontrolled attacks from muslim guerillas coming out of Dutch controlled Serbrenica. Serbians did not reply with any attack but lightly shelled the area in order to show their persistence that all muslim opposition had to be put down, then based on this as-if Serbian provocation, Dutch not only refused to remain neutral but asked the US planes to bomb Serbian positions who had 100% right to attack directly the criminal Dutch since they were not any more peace forces but had taken clearly a military position) but still respecting the UN role, they simply abducted Dutch soldiers and asked NATO forces not to attack them... (who was criminal then? Serbians or Dutch and NATO forces?). Serbians understanding that in Serbenica there were women and children among armed guerillas they permitted them to leave in peace (who was then the criminal against non-fighting population?), thus remaining there Dutch forces and muslim men (some armed some not). In a final moment, Dutch declared they would leave their position after having protected muslim guerillas but also half-disarming them and then leaving them there at the mercy of Serbian forces... Unimaginable! Naturally Serbians stormed the place and killed a number of them but then even the high number of 7500 dead men has never been verified as lots of the names of people given for that slaughter actually had died all along the 2 months of the confict and in different locations. If anything Serbians had suffered the same number of dead

Serbrenica was a tragic event. There is no doubt that Serbians stormed the place and killed a lot. But there is absolutely no doubt that this was no genocidal massacre and not the crime that the west wants to present. Such scenes were repeated unfortunately very often during that war and by everyone. If anyone acted criminally that was most certainly the UN forces and their manipulation of everyone there. The Dutch have to make their own apology over the events.
Karadzic finally captured 08:43am on 28 Jul 2008 ExtraordinaryJoe999, trying to communicate a small piece of truth to people that not only are not ashamed of expressing strong opinions against Serbians without having the slightest knowledge about the Balkans and "whoiswho" there but who also would rather have their hand cut than admit the responsibility of their governments and, why not, indirectly their own collective responsibility (for swallowing all the junk they are force-fed and giving full moral support to criminal gepolitical games).

Jugoslavia was a large federal country in a sensitive area. Imagine that when Chechoslovakians decided to split in piece this was almost "joyfully hailed" by Europeans (especially Germans) who want small less powerfull countries in their periphery. If they would do happily the same with Poland but Poland is one nation. Jugoslavia was a blatant case: a very large federal state with increased gepolitical independence, a real danger - albeit based on the glass legs Tito had given it: most of its nationalities were fighting for long against a central government that was supported mainly (and perhaps only) by Serbians for the very simple reason that it was the lands of Serbians that had been chopped up and shared by other nationalities and not the opposite - hence Serbians in artificial federal states of Croacia and Bosnia naturally wanted maintaining Jugoslavia in order not to be casted into different states that were highly aggresive against their nationality (imagine that even in the 70s there were Croacian and Bosnian terrorist groups that somehow found considerbale support among the non-implicated croato-serbian populations, more than say what ETA finds among Basques - remember the bomb in the JAT plane in the 70s resulting in that miraculous case of air-hostess surviving the explosion and the 4000m free-fall with a couple of broken legs (she was soon fine - but Jugoslavia's legs and head had been broken irreperably).

Divide and conquer. The aim of Europeans and US (US to be honest jumped a bit later when it saw the opportunity opened by Europeans) was to divide the country into small completely powerless states of little to no historical standing - some even no reason to exist (Bosnia, Kosovo, FYROM) other than the fact that a mad-communist and criminal dictator Tito had created them!!! .... and isolate of course the strongest player, that was the Serbians.

It was pre-planned that the Serbians would play the role of the "bad guy". No matter what they did they would be the bad guys. That fairytale about innnocent Croacians and Bosnians and Albanians that "reacted to Serbian aggression" still continues under the hypocritical witch-hunting of supposed war criminals single-handedly among Serbians.

All I am saying is that a little shame could be usefull for some of you around that dare have an opinion. Shame...
Spotlight on tribunal 3:54pm on 23 Jul 2008 Mark, come on. Lets be serious. I hope that you will include this to let people hear the other side (and more real) of the story:

No matter the extend of direct/indirect guilt, there are not more real proofs that Rado (Karazic) is responsible for war crimes than what was found for Slobo (Milosevic). The latter all alone easily stood and defended himself to the point that judges and prosecutors felt harming their professional image while after a 5-6 years "Hague" the as-if fair trial somehow enterred a strange phase of converging more into being a close-to-being fair trial due to the unimportance of the fate of Slobo in both Serbia and the international community (including Russia and China that set aside the case of its embassy) and thus the whole affair stalled: the solution was to let Slobo die away from an illness that not even homeless people that die nowadays.

Can I predict a similar farce for Rado? Or are there any new things on the table between US Russia and/or China that will influence the decisions in relation also to the future of Serbia? What about the new gaz pipeline in the Black Sea Russia-Bulgaria that the US fought so fiercely to prevent? Don't you think it has any relevance with EU's sudden interest for Serbia and Serbia's sudden love for the EU and Russias relative silence and US relative satisfaction but also apprehensiveness?

As for war crimes, the majority of them came not after orders of leaders but out of the indisciplined guerillas from all sides but really, who cares out of all of you? Do not pretend that you really care. I saw not many of you searching in Croacia, Bosnia or Albania - most of them became nowadays local politicians or regional consultants respected internationally and receiving medals - not hiding as alternative medicine doctors...

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Nik