A Bit About Languages

Language fascinates me!  I recently was talking to a friend who studies French (*waves*) and was surprised to find he didn't know some of the boring stuff about the origins of English that I was spouting at him.  So I've decided to put it in a blog so you can ALL be bored.

A Little Acorn

Right.. we probably all have some vague idea about "language families".  I like to think of them literally as a tree.  Imagine an acorn: as it pops up from the ground it is basically a single shoot.  As the oak tree grows up, so it starts branching out and splitting off.  This is exactly what happens to languages.  A good 4000 years ago the languages of around 3 billion people came from the same acorn, a language called "Proto Indo-European" that was spoken on the shores of the Black Sea.  It was a first a single shoot coming out of the earth; then it grew.

This is Indo-European when it was a baby

As time went on and people moved further afield, our parent language started branching off into different related languages.  How and why did this happen?  Well if you think about US and British English, we speak essentially the same thing (Churchill called us "two nations divided by a common language").  300 years ago we spoke *exactly* the same thing however, and over this time we have grown a little apart.  Nowadays we say "dived" and the Americans say "dove".  We refer to a car "bonnet" and they say "hood".  We also spell it "colour" whereas they spell it "color".  When Americans say they "landed flat on their fanny" or talk about putting their passport into their "fanny packs" we explode into uncontrollable laughter because a fanny is a girl's private parts and we have mental ages of 4 year olds.  I could go on and on.  Through time and geographical distance the English language is splitting and gradually growing apart.

Back to the acorn.   We all spoke Proto Indo-European in 2000 BC.  Our language divided up as its speakers moved apart.  Imagine a mighty oak tree with lots of branches, plenty of twigs coming off those branches, and several hundred leaves.  That is our language "family" today.  Proto Indo-European is right at the very base.  There is a branch called the "Germanic branch" and right at the end of it there is a leaf called English.  There are other branches: the Latin branch, the Slavic branch, the Hellenic branch, the Celtic branch etc.  They have all come from the trunk and they all have their own twigs and end up in leaves such as Spanish, Polish, Modern Greek and Welsh.

English is related to every one of these languages I mentioned: just go down from our leaf back along the branch, onto the trunk, and back up another branch and you find the other language.  Ukranian might sound very foreign to us, but it shares our DNA.  Some features of the language, some vocabulary and some structures are the same in both languages.  Okay, Russian is far closer to it, but we are definitely related. We are both part of the same tree and if we go right down to the base, where the acorn came out of the ground, we came from the same place.

Think of our language family exactly like this: a mighty oak

Everyone knows that French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian came from Latin.  The way to think of it, using the tree analogy, is the current day languages are the leaves at the tips.  Latin (now dead) used to be a leaf when the Latin branch was just leaving the trunk.  It grew into a branch of its own and divided up to produce all these leaves we have today.  Other languages used to be on the tree but they either grew into whole branches, or they died.

Even Persian, Hindi, Bengali or Romani ("Gypsy") are on our tree: it is just they branched off early when the tree was first coming out of the ground.  Persian is related to English and we have words in common that go an awful long way back: for example, the Persian word for daughter is "doxtar".

English: on the Germanic Branch

Now let's look at where exactly English is.  We are on the Germanic branch of the oak tree.  The branch has an exact equivalent of Latin called "Proto Germanic" or Old Germanic.  From that now dead language the branch grew out that resulted in all the Germanic languages, including English.

We are a leaf on a twig with 4 other languages or leaves right next to us.  They are:

ENGLISH - FRISIAN - DUTCH - LOW GERMAN - HIGH GERMAN*

The closest language on earth to ours is therefore Frisian.  It's almost touching our leaf.  A sentence of Frisian (it is spoken mainly in the north of the Netherlands) is "Brea, bûter en griene tsiis is goed Ingelsk en goed Frysk." This handy holiday phrase means "Bread, butter and green cheese is good English and good Frisian."  I use it all the time.

Frisian Speaking Areas

Dutch is also very close to English.  "Doe de deur open" is "open the door".  "Doe de deur toe" is "close the door".  "De man is in het huis" is "the man is in the house".  "De kat zat op de mat" is "the cat sat on the mat" etc etc.  It can sound incredibly similar indeed.  There is in effect a huge amount of common vocabulary and language structure because we did not split off that long ago.  It's sometimes said that a Dutchman could stand on the stage in Shakespeare's time and be understood as a comedy figure.  I'm not sure that's true, having studied Medieval Dutch, but it's not that far off.

Dutch is literally the language smack bang in the middle between English and German.  Over the centuries, German has been through some "sound shifts", as has English, that have taken it further away from our Latin equivalent, Old Germanic.  For example, the "d" sound in Old Germanic changed into a "th" in many cases in English.  The "t" sound in changed into a "s" sound in German.  Look at these three sentences and compare:

ENGLISH "That is water" << DUTCH "Dat is water" >> GERMAN "Das ist Wasser"

The Dutch is the "purest" form of Germanic.   Dutch "dat" changes to "that" in English.  The same word changes to "das" in German.  Dutch "water" also changes to "Wasser" in German.  It takes a little bit of work to get from English on the far left to German on the far right, but if you look at Dutch in the middle you can see how it works.

If you know the patterns that all of these so-called sound shifts follow, you can instantly work out that the English word "thoroughfare" is in fact, for example, the same word as "Durchfahrt" in German.  The sign below therefore simply says "thoroughfare forbidden" in English.

Let's Blame the French

What happened to our lovely language then to ruin it and take it truly far away from its Old Germanic roots?  Of course we have to blame the French.  They invaded in 1066 and brought with them that thing known as Norman French.  Its parent is Latin, so it's on a branch right next to our Germanic branch and of course we both came from Proto Indo-European.  However, it was sufficiently different to bring a very different influence to our language.  Something extremely odd happened to English: in the hundreds of years after 1066 our leaf touched a leaf on another branch and they fused together.  English is still Germanic in structure and our vocabulary is still more Germanic than Latin based, but French had a huge effect on our language.

They didn't just bring Renaults & Croissants: they RUINED English!

What is fascinating is how the two languages (Old English/Anglo-Saxon and Norman French) merged.  Essentially most "peasant" words in English remain Germanic: we have stuck with the Old English vocabularly.  You'll recognise many basic words in German or Dutch: man, house, live, eat, sit etc.

Any noun that you think of "irregular" in the plural because it changes its vowel is in fact almost certainly a good hearty Germanic peasant word.  Consider, for example, goose (geese), mouse (mice), man (men) etc.  This is what Germanic languages often do to form the plural: they don't just shove an "s" on like French does, but instead change the vowel.  The same goes for verbs that change their vowel in the past tense: I ride (I rode), I sit (I sat), I swim (I swam) etc.  They are basic words of Germanic origin that survived the onslaught of the French invader.

Looked after by Germanic peasants, eaten by French nobles

Think also of a sheep (the word is schaap in Dutch; or Schaf in German).  This is clearly a word that came from Old English, as you can see from its relatives in our Germanic siblings.  The peasants looked after the animal when it was still alive.  When it gets served up on the table it becomes mutton, however.  It is the greedy French nobles gobbling it up ("mouton" is French for sheep).  The same applies to cow (Dutch "koe" and German "Kuh") which becomes "beef" on the table ("boeuf" in French); and to swine (Dutch "zwijn" and German "Schwein") that becomes "pork" (French "porc") when it is eaten.

Other Language Families

Now obviously Indo-European (the Oak Tree) is a big language family.  It has 3 billion speakers around the world.   There are, however, other language families which are not at all related to us.  This comes about because when humans climbed down from the trees and started speaking to one another, they did so in multiple places in the world at the same time.  Linguists used to think there was one parent language: they now believe there is not.  All that stuff about the Tower of Babel in the Bible?  Nope, sorry.

If we are a leaf on the oak tree, take a look at the beautiful olive tree over there.  It is the Semitic family and it includes Hebrew and Arabic.  Oh the irony: these two languages are very closely related.  Imagine a beautiful cherry tree: it is the Japonic family.  The bamboo tree could be said to represent the Sino-Tibetan family, with 21% of the world's speakers.  This is where we find Mandarin, Cantonese, Burmish and Tibetan.  There is the Niger-Congo family from Africa with other 1500 languages; the Eskimo family of languages etc.  In each case think of a tree, but not a tree that is related to our oak tree.

Hebrew and Arabic: right together on the same tree

Within Europe we have a couple of really interesting non-Indo European examples.  Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian are together in one family, not related to us at all.  They have come from somewhere deep inside Asia (the family is called "Ugric".)  The language of the Basques, spoken down in the south of France and north of Spain is also not related to any other language in Europe.  It is all on its own in its own family and is amazingly ancient: it is the only survivor of the pre-Indo European languages that were once spoken across Europe many thousands of years ago.

This brings us to the end of my little explanation of where English comes from and where it belongs.  If you're a language historian and think this was all complete shite, ooops sorry.  I've tried to explain it in a non-technical way with what I can remember from university.  If you're not a language historian and it has explained or taught you anything, huzzah!

Many thanks for reading.





[A far better name for High German is "Standard German" by the way: long story but what even the Germans themselves call Hochdeutsch is actually East Middle German.  High German is in fact a collection of dialects in the high mountain areas of the south, which interestingly include Yiddish, Bavarian, Alsatian and Austrian German.]

Crêpe

She had just made me an amazing organic-coffee latte, and now my daughter Valentína set herself to the the task (art?) of making a crepe at the ice cream store on Skólavörðurstígur, Eldur og Ís (they don't have a web site/Facebook page yet, but it's the only ice cream store that's actually open in midtown, as is.) This is her first official career move, and so far she's absolutely rockin' it! It helps that she speaks excellent English and has that American ease-of-smile and open demeanor (she was born in San Francisco :) that works so well in this line of business.

The owners have also spent time in California giving this small family-run store a friendliness that is often lacking in Iceland. Let's not sugar things here: Icelanders are not known for being so adept at expressive hospitality

So if you're on your way to our island for the first time, please don't take the cool rudeness personally! (In his amazing 19th century travelogue Egypt and Iceland in the year 1874, Bayard Taylor writes, "The common people - if one has the right to use such a word as "common" to describe such a people - are still something of a puzzle to me. Except among our Indian tribes I never saw such stoical, indifferent faces." pg. 218)  If you are lucky enough to get good, friendly service at a store or restaurant, go ahead and let the person know that you appreciate it. There's no tipping culture here, and Icelanders are horribly negligent about showing appreciation for a job well done. Slowly but surely, with increasing international influence, the service culture here is being massaged into something the average traveler can feel comfortable with. So go ahead and take part in whatever way you can!

And so without further ado, I here present the result of Valentína's artistry, the absolutely delicious Nutella, strawberry and vanilla ice cream crepe:

Have you tried Dynamic Viewing yet? Five new views in all. Use the blue tab at the top of the view page to check them all out : )

Burger Bakar Abang Burn, Taman Dagang

I was initally looking for Kaw Kaw burger as I heard there was a another stall in Ampang besides the Wangsa Maju one. In the end, I stumbled upon Abang Burn Burger Bakar.

This stall is located in a Malay food court next to the Balai Polis Tmn Dagang and behind Galaxy Ampang. Burger bakar is like barbequed burgers. Hence, wearing your grubbiest clothes when buying the burger would have been best because while lining up to place your order, your clothes will 'absorb' the smell of the barbequeing burgers.

The queue was long, but not as long as the one at Wangsa Maju. Since I was not really hungry, I ordered a triple burger with cheese (rm21.50) to share with TF. Upon placing my order, I paid and was given a number. The person in charge told us to just sit and wait for our number to be called. While waiting, we ordered orange juice from a waiter. The Burger Bakar stall had a bell which rings everytime a burger is ready. I didn't know that till I collected my burger. No, there wasn't anyone calling numbers. I went there personally to ask if my burger was ready after waiting for quite awhile. Unfortunately, the orange juice never came. So, we left with just the burger.

Headed home to enjoy the burger and ayam golek which was sold opposite the burger stall. The food court felt unhygenic that it took away my appetite while I was sitting down there.

The burger was fabulously delicious. It wasnt too dry or too wet. That means its juicy and flavourful enough. One bite was never enough. Its definitely worth a second trip. The ayam golek was good too.

My burger experience rankings. Click on links to read more:

First place: Kaw Kaw Burger, Puchong Utama

Second place: Abang Burn Burger Bakar, Taman Dagang

Third Place: My Burger Lab, Taman SEA

Fourth Place: Mc Donald's Samurai Burger

Fifth Place: German Deli, Ampang Jaya

Sixth place: Chilli's Cheeseburger, KLCC/Midvalley

Equal Marriage: A Fudge

The debate about same sex marriage rumbles on.  And on.  And on...

Last night of course President Obama became the first president of the United States to say he supports the measure in an absolutely ground-breaking statement.  Do not underestimate what that means in terms of influence around the world to the equality cause.  My feed was awash with some brilliant tweets last night on the subject. This from @JournoDave really stuck out, touched and inspired me:

It's Quite Simple

The issue, as has been said repeatedly, is plainly and simply, one of equality.  Unlike North Carolina, which has just voted in a measure to block all forms of civil unions, in this country we do at least have Civil Partnerships.  Why are they not good enough?  Well my friend @TheSecretJake puts it beautifully and pithily here:

The denial of marriage equality to same-sex couples, to quote President Obama "means that they are considered less than full citizens."  It is that simple.

There is however undeniably a fudge at the heart of the current UK proposals.  We are seeking equality, but the proposals clearly do not provide it.  They suggest that same-sex civil weddings be permitted in registry offices and other licensed venues.  However, as a sop to prevent religious opposition, the government has made it clear that there are no proposals to force churches to allow same-sex weddings - or more critically, even to allow them to hold them if they wish.  I'm not sure everyone has got that last point.  That isn't equality.

Misleading Voices

I think I'm safe in saying all of the opposition to marriage equality I have encountered has been from traditionalist Christians.  The stance of the Anglican hierarchy is however no where near as anti-equality as these loud voices would have us believe, with the Dean of St Albans having called two weeks ago for the church to "rejoice" at the prospect of gay marriage.  The Jewish Liberal movement has long accepted and lobbied for same-sex unions, as do denominations such as the Unitarian Church, the Metropolitan Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America etc etc.

There are plenty of great individuals on Twitter I follow: Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, United Reformers, Unitarians, Muslims and Jews (literally I can think of someone from each group including quite a few clergy) who are in favour of marriage equality.  The ban on allowing those institutions who actually want to conduct same-sex marriages is simply wrong.  It perpetuates inequality amongst their own members and it is against their own will.

The existence of these pro-equality religious bodies is one issue.  The other is of the scare-mongering traditionalists claiming that churches will be forced to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies.  Neil Addison, a Roman Catholic Junior Barrister at Palmyra Chambers in Warrington (he is held out to be a "leading discrimination lawyer" by the likes of the Mail) has published what I consider to be a misleading and inaccurate blog on the subject.  He "quotes" in a curious way from the recent ECtHR case of Gas/Dubois v France.  This was actually a case which actually upheld that the ECHR currently does not provide the right to same-sex marriage.  When asked to provide the paragraph references by both me and @AnyaPalmer (an extremely sharp pro-equality employment barrister) he refused to publish our comments.  He also makes a somewhat odd statement in his comments about the UK being the only country where ECHR law is applicable in the domestic courts.

Ruling against SSM used to justify slippery slope. Huh?

Addison's blog is still being quoted as "fact" by the likes of the Anglican who poses as a Archbishop who died 450 years ago, @His_Grace.  It is not fact: his viewpoint is speculation, it is heavily coloured by his own religious stance, and it is not supported by any passage in the ECtHR ruling (Anya and I have both carefully read the entire thing, in French).  The Telegraph took down a misleading story in March based on Addison's views, yet he has since published this item.  The concept that all people should be treated equally appears to be terrifying to this type of Christian: so much so that they will use non-facts to bolster their argument and will not allow polite, reasoned, critical examination of their claims.

Marriage as a Civil Contract

Nonetheless, we must accept that are plenty of people of faith who would accept state civil weddings, but do not want religious ones.  They must be free to govern themselves and their institutions in that way, if that is their choice.  The Catholic church does not have to marry divorced people.  If the Pope decrees that "gay marriage is a threat to humanity" (yes, really apparently he did; also caution, the link takes you to the Daily Mail) then the same principle should presumably apply to Church performed same-sex marriages, as ridiculous and offensive as I find such views.

The problem is, however, that in Britain you may either marry in a church, or in a registry office (or other venue licensed for civil weddings).  Whilst churches continue to have the right to join people in matrimony in a sense that creates legal rights and obligations in civil society, there will always be an unresolved issue.

A German "Standesamt"

The solution really is blindingly obvious, and it is one that practised in almost all our close neighbours (the Code Napoleon countries).  Here marriage is purely a contract in civil law.  The three legal jurisdictions I'm personally most familiar with from my practice are Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands: I'm pretty sure the same applies in France, Spain etc.  In these countries you are married by State officials in the City Hall (Standesamt or Gemeentehuis).  Only this civil marriage contract has any legal force.

You then may, if you wish, go along to a Church, Synagogue, Mosque or anywhere else for a religious ceremony.  As a "believer" you may consider only after that are you married "in the eyes of God" - fine, that's your belief.  Your institution may not allow you to have this ceremony if you've been divorced before, or if you're marrying someone of the same sex: that's up to them.  It doesn't matter to me as I don't share your faith and you're welcome to apply your own rules to something that has no civic legal standing.  If your institution does welcome same-sex couples, superb: all the better for the people that this matters to.

It would not be terribly difficult to make this change in the United Kingdom.  It is so much cleaner, so much simpler, and allows both those who object to the religious "ownership" of marriage (of all sexualities), and those whose faith does matter to them, to both be accommodated.  Are you listening Mr Cameron?  Exactly as in the Netherlands (who introduced this in 2000 and whose society has not collapsed into the fiery pits of hell, anarchy or the world of Morris dancing):

Marriage should be open to all two people of the requisite age and capacity, regardless of gender, in the form of a civil contract, performed exclusively by the State.


It's really quite a simple, attractive idea, I believe.  I hope one day that it will be applied widely around the world.

Phylis (77) and Connie (85): first same sex marriage in New York

Finally, if you want to know why this matters, and why the voters of North Carolina who backed the ban on same sex unions have pain and misery on their hands, and spite in their hearts, take ten minutes to click here and watch this harrowing video.  It certainly had me in tears.  Equality isn't an abstract concept.  This stuff matters to people around the world.

Bird infestation

Never thought there will be a day where i will need to google 'how to get rid of birds'.

There is a toilet in my house. I'd call that my bro's toilet. It is blue. Only my brother usually use it... Or usually guys only use it.... Somehow i never fancied using it.

Anyway, since my brother returned to university, the toilet has been abandoned. Few days back, I needed to get toilet paper from that toilet and lol behold, the toilet bowl was filled with twigs and leaves, shaped into a bird's nest! It was shocking and scary because my first thought was how on earth could those things appear in the toilet.

Yesterday we tried putting a doll on the toilet's window ledge, but it still didnt work.... These birds are probably like immune to humans already since they live in the city o-O. We could just close the window, but the window wont budge after twenty years of being opened and untouched.....

Good thing there were no eggs yet. If not the birds will get angry we entered their 'territory'. Angry birds fight can happen and we humans will be the 'green pigs'. Lol

May Sun

We've all seen the gorgeous photos of the Saturday's Super Moon over Reykjavík, so I thought I'd give our lovely Sun some press as well.

I posted this originally in May 2006, when I wrote: I'll let this one speak for itself... (p.s. this was taken from our balcony at around 11 pm in early May.)

Forgiveness

"Forgiveness" is something that's banded about in our society without too many people, I think, considering too much about what it actually means and whether it's a good thing or not.  This blog is a random set of reflections on the concept.

School Assemblies

"Forgive our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us".  I grew up with prayers at school assemblies (do they still do that?) and we would mumble these lines of course without thinking about it or even actually understanding it.  I had a vague notion this related to land rights, I guess.  When I considered the German version I'd also been taught (double indoctrination!) it referred to "debts" not trespassers. More confusing still.  Liberal, atheist American friends are often amazed at our lack of separation of Church and State.  As I explain to them, hymns and prayers at school are the best aversion therapy possible to lead to generations of atheists being produced in Britain.

No trespasses, or no trespassing? All *so* confusing for a blond

The meaning of this line actually refers to sins - the word in Aramaic for debt and sin is the same.  We are asking for forgiveness for things we have done wrong, and saying we will forgive others for wrongs towards us.  As with much of Christianity, a potentially really sound, important lesson is being missed because so many people are turned off not just by the way it is taught, but the way Christianity is perceived in such negative terms in this country for a whole raft of reasons.

The concept of forgiveness is far from unique to Christian thought.  I spent a week in March in Turkey with a beautiful, wonderful woman: a follower of Sufi Islamic Mysticism.  Her utterly inspiring personality was founded square on the concepts of love, forgiveness and the heart.  Contrary to many people's perceptions, Judaism is full of the requirement to forgive.

The best explanation I have experienced about the power and need for forgiveness did not come in a religious context, however.  I was on a personal development/ communication course called the Landmark Forum that I have previously touched on, back in August 1997.  One of the results of the course was my going out and phoning my Dad to tell him I loved him.  Please do read that short blog if you haven't already done so.  That story matters a huge amount to me.

A Fireman Forgives

The power of the Landmark Education courses (this Observer article gives a reasonably fair assessment) is that you experience other people working through things and you learn directly from them.  This was 15 years ago and I remember so clearly a man on the course who broke down during the module on "forgiveness".  His story in summary was that he was a young professional fireman.  He'd been accused of arson by a "friend" who was getting revenge for the guy having run off with his girlfriend.  He had been suspended from work, was going on trial a short time after the course.  The fireman said he could hear what the course leader was saying about forgiveness, but he could not, and would not do it.  The wrong was too great, put simply. 

The course leader spelled out two contrasting situations.  In both the fireman was found guilty, lost his job and went to prison.  In the first he would fester hate in his heart for the perpetrator.  This would consume him every day, eating away at his personality and his being.  At the end of the prison term he would come out, utterly broken, full of revenge and would probably do something stupid in some way or other.  It was as bleak as you could get.  In the other situation, the fireman forgives his friend.  He serves his time, but he comes out with decades still in front of him and a daunting task of rebuilding his life.  The task would be met from a very different space, however: one of power and creativity, not anger and hate.  Life is sometimes desperately unfair.  We cannot control the terrible things that can happen.  They can literally be of this life-changing magnitude and so, so, so, fucking wrong.  But what we can do is control or seek to control how we behave and react in the light of them.

I can picture the pain on the fireman's face and the tears streaming down his face.  He could not do it.  He asked what it meant to forgive.  The course leader said it was to let go off the hate, and more to wish the perpetrator well.  Even more, it required verbalisation.  To give it real power, it had to become real: the course leader asked the man to call his "friend" and tell him this is how he felt.

Not *THE* fireman, just a good excuse for a hot pic

The course runs over 4 days.  This sounds so revoltingly cheesy, but on the last day a man came in whom we hardly recognised.  The fireman looked like he had had the weight of a mountain lifted off him.  His energy was full of brightness, happiness, empowerment.  You know what I mean: you've felt like this at times before and you've seen it in other people.  He'd called his friend and told him that he was sad their friendship had ended, but that he wished him no ill: in fact he wished him all good things in the world.  The friend of course couldn't believe what he was hearing: shit like this doesn't happen.  People just don't behave like that.  I saw the fireman again some months later (on another Landmark course).  He'd been acquitted and was back in his job.  I've no small doubt the way he conducted himself as a witness was a huge factor in that.

Selfish and Individual

The above story hopefully demonstrates that even in an extreme situation, forgiveness can be a very powerful, life-changing thing.  It is also an inherently selfish concept.  I don't think there's the slightest thing wrong in that.  The problem with the Lord's Prayer "you must forgive" version is you're not taught *why* - like many desperately valuable religious messages.  You're just told to do it - essentially because we tell you to, because we know best.  The fireman was forgiving for his own sake, not because he's a "good man" or any other reason.  It's about making the best, for him, of a terrible situation.  That makes far more sense to my analytical way of thinking that the "it's an inherently good thing, don't ask questions" approach.

Another problem with the Christian "forgive everyone, forgive everything" approach is that, for me, it's way too broad-brushed and unfocused.  It therefore loses its power to me: it's just a mantra.  I read a fascinating book that brought this home to me: Simon Wiesenthal's Sunflower.  The first half is Wiesenthal's account of his time in Lemberg concentration camp in Poland (he lost 88 members of his extended family in the Holocaust).  He describes how a young dying Catholic Nazi officer asks for a Jew - any Jew - to forgive him for the crime of having burnt 300 Jews to death in a house.  He does not give the forgiveness and asks the reader what he should have done.  The second half of the book is made up of 53 short essays giving responses from former Nazis, survivors, leading theologians (including Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama), lawyers, human rights activists and philosophers.

An outstanding read: recommended

You can divide the responses into two broad categories: those influenced by the general Christian "you must forgive" attitude and the much more analytical and legalistic approach that typifies the Jewish response.  The latter resonates far more strongly with me.  It says that you can only forgive what has been done to you individually.  Wiesenthal was not being asked to forgive a wrong the German had done to him personally, but rather to forgive on behalf of the Jewish people  How can he forgive on behalf of a murdered 3 year old in that house?  It is simply not his place to: the act of forgiving becomes devalued, meaningless and he has simply no locus or right to do so.

This for me hits the nail on the head for the reason people are just turned off by the cliché of the need to forgive everything and everyone that is so often banded about.  Forgiveness is hugely powerful, but for me it is a personal, individual thing, it has to be directed at the wrongdoer and relate to a specific wrong done to you, yourself.

Forgiveness of Self

Forgiveness frequently of course does not relate to such extreme situations.  Let's face it, few of us are put up on fabricated arson charges or asked to forgive the murder of our people in the holocaust.  We do however frequently insist, at all costs, on making ourselves right and others wrong - frequently holding grudges that last years and that harm no one but ourselves.  I'm no saint: I of course fall into this myself, but do at least work on acknowledging it and trying to let go.  When I understand the rationale and how to do it, it is so much easier.

The last aspect about forgiveness that is often forgotten is the need to forgive oneself.  This is enormous and is at least as powerful as forgiving those who have wronged you.  It is not, for me as an atheist, about seeking forgiveness by going along to a confessional box or praying to a spirit in the sky.

It is about realising that we are all imperfect, make mistakes in life, and can carry round the guilt of that for years in a way which harms us.  Again we come back to a purely "self" or "selfish" (if you like) motivation.  There are things that have happened to me that I could beat myself up about forever.  What I cannot do is turn the clock back.  Shit happens: through my own fault, or through no fault of my own.   We either learn from them or carry the pain with us to our deaths.  With the worst things that have happened in my life, I genuinely have forgiven the whole situation and instead concentrated on a massive learning and personal growth opportunity in them.

One Last Recommendation

I've read so many "personal development" books both before, and especially since,   The Landmark courses helped me enormously through the whole thing.  Another one that did is Louise L Hay's "You Can Heal Your Life".  Here is someone who is frankly utterly bat-shit crazy, but who actually talks so much sense.  Forgiveness and love, of others and of the self, are absolutely key again to her message.  It's completely non-religious and I guess says nothing the great religions don't.  It is however presented in a way that resonated strongly with me.

No I'm not getting a commission

If you don't fancy going on a course like Landmark, and anything I have said has touched you, buy Louise's book.  It's available on Amazon and it too has the potential to change your life, if you read it with an open mind and put her suggestions into effect.  It is extremely practical, and I really do recommend it.  If you choose to ignore my recommendation, I do however of course also forgive you.  IDIOT ;-)

I was going to write this blog anyway, but after a DM conversation late last night with a friend on Twitter, this blog is dedicated to you.  You know who you are.

PME x




[Post Script: I've also had this strongly recommended to me by a friend who went through a deeply traumatic experience, forgave, and says it profoundly changed her.  Note the strap line: "Holding a Grudge is Hazardous to Your Health".  On that basis, let's add it to the list!]