Sunday, 30 May 2010

What the West cannot understand about Orthodoxy [Ce nu poate pricepe Vestul despre Ortodoxie]

There are so many things that the Western civilised (?!) world can’t understand about Orthodoxy, that I had given up the idea of writing a blog post on this topic.

Nevertheless, by God’s grace I came across an article*** which puts in a nutshell what I found so difficult to express. It’s written by Nana Devdariani, a famous Georgian journalist (and former state official), and it initially appeared in The Georgian Times.

Apart from some references to the political turmoil in Georgia, and to how Mikheil Saakahsvili (and probably his pupeteers from the USA) more or less ‘hijacked’ some symbols of Georgia, there’s something else I liked about this article.

It explains how un-Christian Western nations are compared to Georgia or to any Orthodox nation for that matter. It surely takes more for a nation to be Christian beyond St George’s (and England’s) flag kept on the UK’s Union Jack.

Be them the poorest, the most corrupt, the less civilised (and sadly, some of the most abortionist) nations, only Orthodox Churches have been blessed to hold on to the true teachings of Christ!

As individuals, we – the Orthodox believers – are often as spiritually sick as our Western contemporaries. We’re really no better, and while all heterodox may have excuses for their inequities after a millenium of heresies, we have almost none.

The secular nationalism of the West, and it’s array of humanist values are meaningless compared to the essence of Orthodoxy, which is not not just ‘another’ confession, among countless other – it’s the sole Truth left in this world.

We are often accused of being backward, and intolerant, yet many (not all) little Orthodox nations (not Tsarist, neither Putin’s Russia) have proven, throughout centuries, to be more tolerant than some ‘democratic’ societies of today.

I’m sure that some politically correct and brainwashed idiots who keep a watchful eye on this blog may be once more outraged by my claim that not all religions are good, and that there’s only ONE WAY to Salvation.

Our dreams of prosperity, of comfort, of understanding between nations, of solidarity, of world peace (and all the blah-blah-blahs) won’t save us! I’m not against any of these generous ideals; I only want to draw attention to how hypocritical they are.

The very people who are supposed to uphold them, trample on them behing closed doors, and within their hearts. Any of those people serving us the above values only care about themselves.

They are no saviours. The Lord has given us only One, and only once – some 2,000 years ago. It may appear irrational to affirm this for some many ‘wise people’ of today, but hell is full of ‘wise people’ who were sure (and taught others accordingly) that there is no hell.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Therefore, for those who have still got eyes to see, and ears to hear, I’m recommending the next article (whitin which I bolded some words):

The West cannot understand that Orthodox Christianity is not a confession – one among many others

Our politicians often note that Georgia and the West have ‘common values’. They say this so often that it has become a kind of slogan. The key motive for repeating such a statement is to make it an accepted formula, which people unthinkingly repeat without pondering its essence.

But this is a vitally important issue. Values per se define our place in the world, our perception of the world and our attitudes to each and all. Our values define life and often death. We all have seen the terrible pictures of naked Jews being brought to the Nazi concentration camps. Those who do not know what Erva means for Jews cannot guess that being naked is worse than death for a Jew.

The meaning of values is in reality a philosophical issue but we are witnessing their profanation and vulgarisation before our eyes. When a new article in the Criminal Code of Georgia on 'squealing' sparked a public outcry this was not a manifestation of a criminal mentality in society but something deeper, directly connected with our religious belief.

Squealing” is not considered bad because people don't want to cooperate with the police but because Judas Iscariot did exactly this when he betrayed Jesus with a kiss. On the basis of religious values it can be readily deduced what will be acceptable to society and what not.

Different attitudes to sin are one of the differences between various religions.
If you observe the Western way of life, you realise that sin is becoming an increasingly ‘comfortable’ thing. Westerners can never get enough comfort, and this means accepting every sin going.

Through competing with Protestants (and other denominations) for members the Catholic Church has started to abandon its positions step by step to become a more comfortable place to be. But this is not a new thing. It all started with selling indulgences – forgiveness of sins in exchange of money.

The Catholic Church has simplified the state of a believer and accepted that deep repentance is not absolutely necessary for sins to be forgiven. Rather the fear of sin, or slight repentance, is enough.

The practice of indulgences was not ‘invented’ out of the blue. It has a well-argued basis: Catholic belief states that God is angry with humans for their sins and will inevitably punish them, and therefore you have to do something for God to have your sins forgiven. It was merely a scholastic and technical issue to turn this doctrine into enabling people to pay for indulgences.

But paying in any form is unimaginable for an Orthodox. Sin drives men from God but God never leaves a sinner. God does not demand payment but a change of behaviour. Sin is not as simple an issue as it may seem at first glance. It is unacceptable for Orthodox to try and buy God’s mercy, to ‘bribe’ God and then go back to living the same life as before.

Although trading in indulgences was eventually condemned the Protestants took the next step when they began to recognise only two out of the 7 mysteries: baptism and eucharist, and rejected sacramental repentance through confession along with the remaining four (chrismation, ordination, marriage, anointing the sick).

I am not arguing that a Protestant does not repent at all. But repentance is not a holy mystery for a Protestant. Today both the Catholic Church and Protestants are more tolerant of sins, including those which contradict their own religions' morals and ethics. It is indisputable that nobody forces you to behave this or that way.

But the problem is that you cannot refuse to repent of your sins if you want to be called a believer. Western Christianity has met such 'believers' halfway already.

Affiliation with any religion does not grant someone an insurance against sin (and neither does atheism). Man is sinful in essence, but the difference between them lies in whether they repent of their sins or justify them.

If you look at the histories of Europe and Georgia, you will see a significant difference between the two. In Europe kings (or noblemen, dukes or other rulers) could change the religion of the people. In medieval Europe this principle was universal: whoever rules, theirs is the Church of the people.

This principle has not been applied in Georgia since Christianity was declared the state religion, even when Georgia had Moslem kings. The ‘wars of religion’ often cited by academics were mostly fought for political reasons, religion being just the packaging of political attempts to change the values of the people by force.

When talking about the historic tolerance of Georgians scholars often note that Jews were never murdered or harassed in Georgia. But this is an extreme simplification of the issue. Jews enjoyed the same privileges as Georgians did, and, more importantly, their property was protected, which is as important for a Jew as their personal protection.

Researchers often complain that there is a lack of records about Jews in Georgia, but this is because there were no separate regulations for them and they enjoyed the same rights as all other people.

The West cannot understand that Orthodox Christianity is not a confession – one among many others. It is a rule of existence and social organisation and its identification with being Georgian is so firmly established that you cannot even dispute it without stirring angry protests.

In 1888 Ilia Chavchavadze wrote: “Christianity, besides the actual Christian confession, means the Georgian soil, means being Georgian. Today in the South Caucasus Georgia and Christian are identical. They would say somebody had turned Georgian, rather than turned Christian [if a Moslem converted to Christianity here].

Our Church knows that land and nationality mixed with belief, intertwined with religion, form an insurmountable sword and shield before the enemy. This is what has helped this tiny country resist numerous foes! The Church has linked the land and nationality to belief and the nation has had this trinity as a guide through 1,500 years of war and bloodshed. This trinity preserves the homeland and Georgian identity for a Georgian.”

Words and deeds often differ in politics but we also often cannot link issues which are rings in the same chain of logic. For instance, when the President says that his political idol is Kemal Ataturk he should remember that the Moslem religious schools were closed under Ataturk, teaching religious discipline was banned and religious symbols and clothes was forbidden.

In 1925 the Darwish brotherhoods were abolished. Ataturk expelled the Ecumenical Patriarch from Constantinople. In 1928 Article 2, which stated that Islam was the state religion, was removed from the Constitution.

Let’s remember 2002-2003 when the newly established Government raised five-cross flags with the slogan: “Let’s regain Georgia!” For many people this was a signal that the National Movement was nationalist and an Orthodox political force was coming into power. Many would even note: “I do not follow Misha but the five-cross flag!

But in reality if you had looked at the past and present of that movement you would have seen that its nationalism meant no more than citizenship of Georgia and its Orthodoxy the equality of the national Faith with all the other confessions.

The attempt by the opposition to play the same card is again a false promise, as they have the same values as the National Movement and it cannot be otherwise, as the West they court teaches a different type of nationalism and does not teach Orthodox Christianity.

The message of the National Movement which people misinterpreted was absolutely understandable and acceptable for the Western political elite. The five-cross flag, which is associated with the Crusaders, was a signal that the people holding these flags would also be 'crusaders'.

The colours of the flag are the traditional colours of Coca-Cola, and have been established in the Western mentality as such for half a century. As for Christianity, the US still calls itself a Christian country but this is as far from the truth as Western Christianity is from Orthodoxy.

The symbol of the National Movement which has become the state symbol was well-thought out and has achieved its goal. But this goal did not have anything common with the hopes and desires of the people who thought that the symbol was designed for them.

*** NOTE: I’m afraid I couldn’t post an active link here, but any Google search with the name of the article usually finds it.

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Thursday, 27 May 2010

[EN] Not worth trying in the UK / [RO] Nu merită încercat în UK (13)

[EN] Most of these ‘golf souvenirs’ in St Andrews are some of the most beautiful things to buy I’ve ever seen.

[RO] Majoritatea acestor ‘suveniruri de golf’ din St Andrews sunt unele dintre cele mai frumoase lucruri de cumpărat pe care le-am văzut vreodată.

[EN] I’m especially refering to shirts & pullovers – and I’m rarely (if ever! :-) saying nice things about garments and shopping.

[RO] Mă refer mai ales la cămăşi şi plovăre – şi eu rar (dacă o fac vreodată! :-) spun chestii drăguţe despre veşminte şi cumpărături.

[EN] This little store was probably one of the fewest where I really wanted to buy something.

[RO] Acest mic magazin a fost probabil unul dintre puţinele din lume unde chiar am vrut să cumpăr ceva.

[EN] But according to a typically Scottish calculation, I found the investment not worth it: £ 20 for a cap or £ 65 for the cheapest shirt noticed :-(

[RO] Dar, după un calcul tipic scoţian, am socotit că investiţia nu merită: £ 20 pentru o şapcă sau £ 65 pentru cea mai iefină cămaşă remarcată :-(

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Saturday, 22 May 2010

Din raidurile mele prin inima Scoţiei (14) [From my forays into Scotland’s heartland]

Nu că aş fi ţinut neapărat, dar prin peregrinările pe meleaguri scoţiene am ajuns să văd şi cum petrec jucătorii de golf – altă născocire tipic scoţiană.

Pentru perisaje, mi-ar fi plăcut să ajung la Gleaneagles, altă destinaţie a pasionaţilor (mai mult sau mai puţin bogaţi) de golf, dar am ajuns să văd la fel de cunoscutele...

...terenuri din St Andrews, orăşel care se laudă cu trei lucruri: 1. universitatea (fondată la 1413), 2. ruinele catedralei (despre care am scris) şi 3. golful.

Golferi din întreaga lume, cu tot soiul de maşini fiţoase, se adună aici, pentru această bizară modalitate de pierdere a vremii.

Cam la fel cum se întâmplă cu pescuitul – unii sunt bolnavi de golf, alţii îl urăsc şi cu greu ar găsi ceva mai plictisitor.

Pentru împătiminţi, nici măcar vremea mai rece (vânt este tot timpul în Scoţia şi unora le este insuportabil, nu şi mie), nu-i descurajează de la o partidă de golf.

Şi, chiar dacă este un mitGOLF ar însemna Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden (doar pentru domni, interzis doamnelor), nu cred să fi observat vreo... golferiţă.

În schimb, nu puteam să nu văd cum tot orăşelul este presărat cu magazine destinate golferilor şi indicatoare care să te îndrume către această atracţie principală.

Ba chiar, în apropiere de cel mai vechi teren de golf din lume (St Andrews Old Course) găseşti şi un muzeu închinat acestei pasiunii seculare.

Oare pentru a ţine morţiş a arăta că există ceva mai plictisitor decât golful însuşi? Sau dimpotrivă (că n-am intrat), poate muzeul (foto 3) este mai interesant...

Oriunde altundeva s-o mai practica acest sport (?!), cu cine-ştie-ce facilităţi mai impresionate, St Andrews rămâne locul cunoscut drept ‘casă a golfului’.

Probabil, dată fiind situaţia financiară a celor care îl practică, tot ce este legat de golf reprezintă principala ramură economică a micii localităţi din Fife (coasta estică a Scoţiei).

[Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

Thursday, 20 May 2010

O alegere ucigaşă, vândută la televiziune [A murderous choice, sold on television]

N-ar trebui să fie de mirare într-o ţară unde “omul, în cinste fiind n-a priceput; alăturatu-s-a dobitoacelor celor fără de minte şi s-a asemănat lor” (vezi aici şi aici la ce mă refer), însă noua victorie a avorţioniştilor nu are cum să nu şocheze.

Toate marile ziare şi alte media britanice (vezi aici, aici, aici, aici şi aici) se arată mai mult sau mai puţin şocate că ‘publicitatea la avort’, deja foarte vizibilă în UK, a mai depăşit o ultimă barieră.

Dreptului de a alege uciderea – pentru că nu este alta esenţa acestui ‘drept al omului’ – i se va putea face reclamă la televiziunile britanice, după orele 22:00.

O organizaţie antiumană (îmi asum furia politic corecţilor pentru a o califica astfel!), care ucide circa 65,000 de copii nenăscuţi în UK, în fiecare an, a obţinut posibilitatea de plasa câte o reclamă pentru moarte în calupuri de publicitate.

Desigur, cuvântul moarte nu apare în reclamă, nici măcar cuvântul avort, căci promotorii acestui ‘drept al omului’ sunt extrem de iscusiţi în a răstalmăci totul pe lumea aceasta, până la a spune păcatului – virtute, mizeriei – curăţie şi albului – negru.

Între o reclamă la maşini, la băuturi, la mâncare, la vacanţe sau la cine-ştie-ce alte ‘distracţii’, oamenilor li se oferă posibilitatea de a face “alegeri informate legate de sănătatea sexuală”.

Elegant nume pentru ucidere, nu-i aşa? Aceasta este ultima alegere care trebuie legitimată pentru una din trei britanice care va face cel puţin un avort în timpul vieţii, după ce i s-a spălat creierul a crede că promiscuitatea este firească.

Nu era destul că dreptul la ucidere este perfect legal. În UK, în România şi în mai toate statele civilizate din UE (mai puţin în Malta şi cu anumite restricţii în Irlanda şi Polonia).

De acum înainte, mai întâi britanicii, apoi şi românii şi toţi ceilalţi civilizaţi, ar trebui să ne obişnuim cu ideea că este inuman ca femeile (cât mai de tinere) să nu aibă deplină cunoştinţă despre acest drept.

Despre inumanitatea uciderii, despre cum sunt amăgite aceste femei să creadă că un asasinat le rezolvă problemele, despre faptul că nenăscutul om este tot OM devine politic incorect să vorbeşti în civilizaţia noastră tot mai întunecată.

[Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

Monday, 17 May 2010

UK’s motor vanity fair (16) [Bâlciul deşertăciunilor cu motor din UK]

Apart from the Congestion Charge making London such a liveable city compared to other metropolises, the UK’s capital is on the way to becoming “the electric car capital of Europe.”

This is the ambition of its Tory mayor, Boris Johnson, who announced over a year ago that he’s planning to invest £ 20 million in this ‘green project’.

Back then, Gordon Brown had promised that the UK Government would give the rest up to £ 60 million, as London couldn’t afford the entire investment.

But that was before the country’s finances went from bad to worse. Would David Cameron’s Government keep Brown’s commitment?

According to Johnson, cars like those in these images – the pics 3 & 4 being provided by C.L., a reader of this blog – should evolve from a mere peculiarity on London’s streets into being an ‘easy choice’ for Londoners.

Even his administration (Greater London AuthorityGLA) is supposed to replace at least 1,000 of its fleet with electric vehicles.

It’s very likely that not all of them will be as little as those shown here, rivaling in size with most other small cars.

Actually, this G-Wiz car is smaller than Daimler’s Smart, and BMW’s Mini, and it’s obviously a strange type of vehicle (but already having a car club).

Meant to be driven almost exclusively within cities, not on motorways or country roads, such a car is sold for an average price of £ 7,000 – more than Tata MotorsNano :-)

A G-Wiz promises savings of over £ 9,000 per year, and has no carbon footprint… in case some buyers may still be fooled by this (anthropogenic) Global Warming swindle.

Some 100,000 electric cars should appear on London’s streets in a few years, and Johnson promises to build 25,000 charging points.

Not for the sake of reducing carbon emissions, but because such cars would make London even a more pleasant city, I wish Johnson’s ambition would turn into reality!

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Saturday, 15 May 2010

Trei din patru britanici visează la emigrare [Three in four Britons dream of emigration]

Fie criza cât de rea – iar mai răul încă nu a venit – încă se mai adună destui oameni care vor să traverseze cu orice preţ Canalul Mânecii şi să-şi refacă viaţa în UK, un fel de tărâm al făgăduinţei’, unde şansele de reuşită le par mai mari decât în alte ţări.

Indiferent ce or înţelege prin reuşită, probabil că este vorba de acelaşi ideal al bunăstării şi unei vieţi plăcute (comode, distractive).


Un ideal pe care, dinainte de actuala criză, tot mai mulţi britanici nu-l mai găseau realizabil în ţara lor. Acum, trei din patru se gândesc la emigrare.


Probabil că încă sunt mai puţini faţă de câţi români vor să-şi ia tălpăşiţa din ţara lor şi sigur nu este un fenomen nou în istoria UK, căci altfel cum s-ar fi născut SUA?

Paradoxal este că, în vreme ce criza i-a gonit din Spania şi Franţa pe mulţi dintre britanicii care credeau că pot trăi mai bine undeva nu prea departe de patrie, alţii visează că mai departe (cu precădere în Australia şi Noua Zeelandă) pot găsi mai binele.

Dat fiind veşnicul dor de ducă pe care l-aş numi tipic britanic, cred că în orice mare librărie (nu doar una din Edinburgh – de unde provine imaginea) din UK sunt rafturi special dedicate ghidurilor privind o nouă viaţă într-o lume nouă.

Emigrarea nu este incompatibilă cu ce cred eu a fi reuşita în viaţă, dar adesea se întâmplă ca cei care n-au găsit în ţara natală sensul vieţii să nu-l găsească nici aiurea.


Deşi, teoretic, experienţa emigrării te zguduie din temelii şi-ţi deschide porţi inclusiv către ceea ce contează cu adevărat.

M-aş bucura ca actuala criză să le arate tot mai multora că nu de altă ţară au nevoie pentru o altă viaţă şi că degeaba schimbi exteriorul – o ţară rea’ cu una ‘mai bună – dacă nu-ţi schimbi interiorul, adâncul inimii.

Mediul de viaţă de poate schimba în mare măsură, de la a te ajuta să te laşi de obiceiuri proaste (constrâns fiind de presupusele bunele obiceiuri din jur) până la a-ţi schimba dispoziţia, a te face mai vesel. Dar nu întotdeauna mai bun sau mai fericit.

Dacă nu îţi schimbi perspectiva asupra vieţii, dacă toate obiectivele tale – pe care, chipurile, ţi-era imposibil să le atingi în ţara lăsată în urmă şi le-ai putea realiza în cealaltă – se termină la mormânt (cea mai sigură destinaţie), n-ai învăţat nimic.

Dacă nu-L cauţi pe Cel Care vrea să ne dea nişte poveţe cu criza aceasta (după cum explica Sf. Nicolae Velimirovici despre Marea Criză din anii `30) şi prin toate crizele personale, degeaba îţi schimbi ţara.

În plus, prea mult are criza de faţă simptomele unei boli terminale ale civilizaţiei hedoniste şi ucigaşe de prunci a ultimelor decenii, astfel că, oriunde te-ai duce în căutarea unui anume tip de mai bine, acesta nu va mai fi nicăieri de găsit.

Cel mai trist mi se pare că, departe de a fi învăţat lecţiile crizei, pe zeci de milioane de oameni îi va prinde mai răul risipiţi în căutarea unui fals mai bine.


Când de fapt, criza ne este dată ca ultim semnal de alarmă, să ne trezim la (după cum acelaşi sfânt ne-o descrie) viaţa adevărată!

[Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/ For all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

Wednesday, 12 May 2010

[EN] Worth trying in the UK / [RO] Merită încercat în UK (13)

[EN] There are countless interesting places in London, and one not necessarily ‘tipically British’ is Covent Garden.

[RO] Există nenumărate locuri interesante în Londra, iar unul nu neapărat ‘tipic britanic’ este Covent Garden.

[EN] Most great cities of the world have similar (permament or temporary) places, however, it’s worth trying the Londonese version of such a… fair.

[RO] Cele mai multe mari oraşe ale lumii au locuri (permanente sau temporare) similare, totuşi, merită încercată versiunea londoneză a unui asemenea... bâlci.

[EN] This area between the City of Westminster and Camden was never a proper garden, but a… market, at least since the early 1600s.

[RO] Această zonă dintre City of Westminster şi Camden n-a fost niciodată o grădină propriu-zisă, ci o… piaţă, cel puţin de la începutul anilor 1600.

[EN] Famous for hosting Royal Opera House, this place is crowded with Londoners, foreigners, street performers, little merchants, and… pickpockets.

[RO] Faimos pentru găzduirea Royal Opera House, acest loc este plin de londonezi, străini, artişti ai străzii, mici comercianţi şi… hoţi de buzunare.

[EN] Although street shows are now restricted to the 10-19:00 interval, buying food or souvenirs is possible at least until 23:00, all year round, except for Christmas Day – this being one of the last shades of the respect this day was once give.

[RO] Deşi spectacolele stradale sunt acum restrânse la intervalul 10-19:00, cumpărarea de mâncare şi suveniruri este posibilă cel puţin până la 23:00, tot anul, cu excepţia Zilei de Crăciun – aceasta fiind una dintre ultimele ulmbre ale respectului care se dădea odinioară acestei zile.

[EN] For the images of this episode, I must thank to someone who wants to be known ony as C.L., a reader of this blog.

[RO] Pentru imaginile din acest episod, trebuie să mulţumesc cuiva care vrea să fie cunoscută numai drept C.L., cititoare a acestui blog.

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Monday, 10 May 2010

How differently England and Scotland voted [Cât de diferit au votat Anglia şi Scoţia]

It is not for me to explain here what a ‘hung parliament’ is, as long as so many specialists have been doing this since the historical UK Elections of 2010 of last Thursday.

I only like to draw attention to how severely split the vote was, and to how the Tories appear to be ‘forbidden’ in Scotland.

The fact that the Scots (as well as people of Northern Ireland and Wales) have so different preferences than the English should be worrisome.
Few other countries offer similar examples, and I would note the Ukrainian presidential elections (January 2010) and the Iraqi parlamentary elections (March 2010).
These are both rather disfunctional democracies, and as a ‘fan of Britain’, I’d certainly not want to see the British democracy take that rather secessionist path.

Therefore, I dare asking here: is such a split vote the sign that the union between England and Scotland is about to crack? Do the 2010 Elections boost the chances of an independent Scotland?

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Tuesday, 4 May 2010

Cum poate discrimina corectitudinea politică [How can political correctness discriminate]

În încercarea de a facilita viaţa minoritarilor şi de a-i proteja de orice reale sau închipuite pericole – ca să nu mai zic de a legitima păcatul ca fiind mod de viaţă! – Big Brother creează situaţii caraghioase.

Chipurile, pentru a feri de discriminare, ipocrita corectitudine politică ajunge ea însăşi să discrimineaze, atunci când creează astfel de săli speciale... pentru studenţi negri şi alte categorii de minoritari.

Doar este de la sine înţeles că, dacă eşti de altă culoare a pielii, te-ai simţi stingher să intri într-o astfel de cameră rezervată celorlalţi. Fie şi dacă nu s-ar întâmpla să fii dat afară, parcă tot nu-ţi vine a intra acolo.

Să nu mai zic că, de-ar fi să intre cei pentru care sunt rezervate sălile de pe panou într-o sală pentru toată lumea, evident că trebuie primiţi. Doar n-o să-i discriminezi şi să cutezi a-i trimite în... sălile special create pentru ei.

Cât despre camera pentru femei, probabil că era ceva înghesuială acolo, dat fiind că la University of Sussex erau multe facultăţi de ştinţe umaniste (humanities), unde ponderea studentelor este de 70-80% :-)

Tare ciudat mi s-a părut să văd într-o foarte liberală universitate a politic corectei UK panouri care, după mintea mea, ar fi fost mai degrabă de întâlnit în SUA anilor 1880-1960...

...atunci când, din Florida până în California sau din North Dakota până în Alabama (nu exclusiv în statele fostei Confederaţii secesioniste!), găseai încăperi rezervate doar pentru albi (Whites only) şi doar pentru negri (Negro/Colored only).

Ca un pudel al lui Big Brother, USSU n-a renunţat decât la cuvântul ‘only’ (numai), iar panoul nu trimite la săli ‘doar’ pentru femei, negri sau LGTB.

Totuşi, politic incorectului şi păcătosului de mine nu mi-a atenuat senzaţia de segregare, odată ce am citit panoul care trimite la o “cameră a studentului negru” sau oricum s-o mai chema acum!

[Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

Sunday, 2 May 2010

About public transport in the UK (13) [Despre transportul în comun în UK]

Train travel in the UK may not be cheap, nevertheless, the passenger is given a broad range of choices, which could make journeys as cheap as possible.

If you travel outside the ‘rush hours’ of each day, if you pay a return ticket in advance, if you buy a day or week travelcard, if you do this or that… you could end up paying less.

If only you had someone to ask to, and you spoke reasonable English! These are the only preconditions, as train station empolyees are pretty courtenous.

But being good in English is irrelevant when it comes to asking advice from an automaton (1st picture), which doesn’t know anything about British civility.

All you are given are ‘options’ to pick from; yet they are rarely clearly explained. A solution could be trying to read them in French or German, when possible.

The problem is the more rail companies want to save money, the more ‘unmanned train stations’ appear in the UK, and you can only practice your English with these machines :-(

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]