Who said: "We believe that all men are created equal"? I suppose it all comes down to what definition you apply to "men." One of the first presidents of the United States was a well-known slave owner. Meanwhile, we have the first Afro-American President in the White House. Annette Gordon-Reed’s The Hemingses Of Monticello: An American Family was published by Norton as it a timely reminder of a second family of a historic president. |
| Thomas Jefferson |
American President Thomas Jefferson is the lynchpin in this story shedding light on his two families, a white one and a slave one. Firstly, there was his wife, Martha Wayles Skelton who was the daughter of a fellow slave owner in Virginia. Her dowry consisted of slaves, of which at least one was a half sister: Sarah ‘Sally’ Hemings. It makes you wonder how it felt owning and selling your own children as slaves.
Sarah Hemings was nine when Martha Wayles Skelton died. Later, she became the mistress of Thomas Jefferson. She accompanied Thomas Jefferson to Paris when he was posted there as US ambassador to France. The French looked at these affairs differently and would not object, and the fellow slave owners in Virginia might think it normal, if a bit eccentric, to take your slave mistress on an assignment of such importance. American political circles frowned on such antics as inappropriate. Abigail Adams was the wife of John Adams who would precede Thomas Jefferson in the White House. Writing from London where John Adams was ambassador to the court of King George of the United Kingdom, she admonished him not to commit such an outrage. Keeping slaves was quite in order, but having an affair was completely unthinkable.
When Jefferson was called back to the United States, Sarah Hemings felt disinclined to follow him there. Slavery was outlawed in France; legally, she wasn't a slave but a free woman as long as she didn't return to the United States; the same principle would apply to all her children. She was pregnant with his child when the recall came. Being promised that her children would be freed at the age of 21 made her agree to go back with him to the country of the free.
Thomas Jefferson didn’t take great care to conceal their relationship when they returned to the United States. Their relationship produced four children and endured unto his death. It also laid him open to political attacks and other base and abusive vituperation. The high point in abuse would be reached during his Presidency when rabid racists constantly attacked him and his policies over it.
Eventually, he freed their children as promised, two of them by deed of will. Sarah was not freed in his will. She was also not sold in the estate auction when the other ‘130 valuable negroes’ mentioned in the auction catalog were sold off. It seems that she was given ‘free time’; this would have spared her from having to leave Virginia. As a freed slave, she would have been bound to leave the state within a year of being freed.
Annette Gordon-Reed’s book covers the whole of Thomas Jefferson’s adult life. It contains a lot of historical information without being boring at any point. It also makes you wonder about the thought processes of the men who founded the United States.
Further readingAbolition of Slavery: A Purely Financial DecisionThe White Sex Slaves of 1874Sex Workers of Georgian London
22 October 1964, everyone was waiting for the announcement of who had won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Finally, it was already afternoon, the news-tickers started working: Jean-Paul Sartre had been chosen to be honoured in Stockholm. A short time later, the news-tickers were busily writing again: Jean-Paul Sartre rejected the Nobel Prize for Literature. The literary world was left either speechlessly astounded or vociferously outraged. |
| Jean-Paul Sartre |
It was around 1 pm on this 22 October 1964, when the news originating with the Swedish Academy came across the ticker that this year's Nobel Prize for Literature had been accorded to Jean-Paul Sartre, the author, playwright and founder of existentialism. The justification read that Jean-Paul Sartre's anarchistic spirit and his search for truth had exerted a far-reaching influence on modern literature.
Shortly afterwards came the next message which hit like a bombshell: Jean-Paul Sartre refused the Nobel Prize for Literature. The literary world went berserk. Journalists fanned out over Paris in the hope of finding someone or calling anyone who might know something. No one knew or even pretended they knew the background to the news. Journalists finally found Sartre and his life partner Simone de Beauvoir sitting in a restaurant and tried to get an interview. They were rebuffed with a statement that he had done it for personal and practical reasons and that he would issue a written statement with the full explanation the following day.A day later, the newspapers were full of conjecture about Jean-Paul Sartre's reasons for the refusal. Swedish media were of the opinion that the Nobel Prize Committee had never been insulted more. The refusal of the prize was unprecedented. George Bernard Shaw had not wanted the prize in 1925, but instead opted to donate the prize money to a literary society. Boris Pasternak had also rejected it in 1958 with a lot of help from his 'friends' in the KGB; Vladimir Putin knows how that one works very well.
Jean-Paul Sartre's rejection was unique: It was done voluntarily and based on his own conviction. He stated: A writer taking a political or literary stance should do so only with the means at his disposition - the written word. Any accolade received would put readers under pressure, which he consider undesirable. Writings would not read same if he were to sign "Jean-Paul Sartre" or "Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prize winner". Furthermore, he didn't consider himself part of either political pole East or West and considered to be home in the free democratic order and socialism. By being awarded the prize, he felt he was being annexed by the West.
The journalists kept on drilling. Two days after the announcement, a team of journalists got lucky again. Again they caught Jean-Paul Sartre in a restaurant. They were kept waiting until the master was ready for them; when he was, they weren't. Neither camera nor sound was ready; the result was footage with too dark images and crackling sound. The catastrophe had high documentary value while he once again steadfastly refused to say something unambiguous. That was the problem of it all: How should he explain not taking sides without taking sides? He was sitting between two chairs; and that is the story the archive sequence tells us today.
The master seemed to refuse the media; at least that was the way it was interpreted. His motives for refusing the prize were difficult to convey. He did not want to be appropriated by any ideology. He was happiest in the no man's land between the political camps. And he didn't want the label "Nobel Prize" stuck unto his words to give them only seemingly more weight.Jean-Paul Sartre was seemingly unfriendly, stubborn, and difficult to understand; or so it was received by journalists dealing with this particular story. But he was also open-minded, winning, and charming on other occasions.
On a visit to Geneva, he was accompanied by a team of journalists and cameramen from the Swiss newsreel company. As he tramped through the historic city together with Simone de Beauvoir, he showed a completely different side of his personality. It must have been a successful encounter between Jean-Paul Sartre and the media. Looking at the footage, he decided to write the voice-over comments himself. And not only that, he then did the voice-over himself. Jean-Paul Sartre in German acting as a speaker in the background. Unique. Unpredictable. Typical for him.
Further readingHigh Literature: Being Politically IncorrectUnited Nations World Capital GenevaThe Little Prince
Every year, the awarding of the Nobel Prizes and the subsequent announcement of the winners gives ample opportunity to make snide remarks and scope for a good gripe. Did the right person get it or was the wrong person overlooked and went away empty-handed? Was the award given from political motivation or was it handed out on the basis of a great discovery? The Nobel Prize has many stories that range from strange to touching and outright tragic.
The award to Menachem Begin in 1978 was a similar mistake. Later, members of the Nobel Committee apologized for the decision. Menachem Begin was the leader of an underground organization that perpetrated lethal attacks against British Mandate authorities in 1948. In 1978, The committee didn't know of these atrocities, or maybe just didn't want to know about them.
Sometimes, the Nobel Peace Price is awarded as a lifeline to political prisoners. German publisher and author Carl von Ossietzky was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1935 when Adolf Hitler was consolidating his grip on power in Germany. He had made the secret rearmament of the German Reichswehr public to the world and as a consequence was interned in a concentration camp (today, the US government calls such people terrorist helpers and traitors, too; doesn't that make you think?). He was released after the announcement of the award, but at the order of the Nazis was not allowed to accept the award.
The Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 should also have served in a saving mission. It went to the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. Following the announcement of this award, he was released from prison but is still under house arrest. Like Carl von Ossietzky, he could not accept the price personally.
Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921. It was not awarded for his work on the general theory of relativity as you would expect. He received it for the little known publication of his explanation of the photoelectric effect. Critics claim that the committee was just too stupid to understand his theory of relativity.
Lise Meitner's contribution to the understanding of nuclear fission was overlooked by the committee, too. According to the laudatory speech, she had "only" found out how much energy is being released in the process and explained the result relatively simple formulas.
Occasionally, there were genuine mistakes. Danish pathologist John Grib Fibiger was awarded the 1926 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his discovery that a small nematode did trigger stomach cancer. This assumption later proved to be completely wrong.
Canadian John Macleod was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1923. While his employees discovered insulin, he himself had actually been on holiday and in no way involved in the process.
Similarly, the relevant facts in the case of Selman Waksman point in an other direction. The American was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1952 for his discovery of streptomycin. In fact, the antibiotic was the discovery of his student Albert Schatz.
And at least once, the committee was completely wrong. Anthony Hewish was cited in 1974 for his "decisive role in the discovery of pulsars". Actually, all the work was done by his doctoral student Jocelyn Bell Burnell.
By content of the original deed, dead people can't receive an award. Sadly, the history of Canadian immune researcher Ralph Steinman partly overturned that inflexible rule. He died three days before the announcement of his win in 2011. The jurors were told of his death only after the prize had been awarded to him. Although the price may actually be awarded only to living people, the jury awarded a Nobel Prize posthumously.
Winston Churchill also graces the list of winners. But Mr. "No Sports" did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize, but the Nobel Prize in Literature. This was justified by his oratory and his biographical writing. The literary world reacted surprised and slightly annoyed. Only the winner was not surprised. When Winston Churchill received the news of having won the Nobel Prize, he just asked, "In which discipline?"
There is a group of multiple winners. A Nobel Prize was awarded twice to only four people ever. In addition to Marie Curie (1903 for Physics and 1911 for Chemistry), Linus Pauling (for Chemistry in 1954 and in 1962 for Peace) and John Bardeen (in 1956 and 1972 respectively for Physics) there was also Frederick Sanger (1958 and 1980 respectively for Chemistry). Of this illustrious list, only Linus Pauling didn't have to share his prizes with someone else.
When Albert Einstein received the Nobel Prize in 1921, he could not enjoy the prize money: He had promised the money to his wife Mileva to get her to consent to a divorce.
Something similar happened to Robert Lucas. His wife had consented to the divorce only if she gets half the prize money should he be an award winner. Nearly seven years later and a few weeks before the deadline of the agreement, her ex-husband received the news of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1995.
The list of "unlucky" losers is long. Some incomprehensible jury decisions will always remain uncorrected. Mahatma Gandhi failed three times to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. During the fourth attempt, the signs were better. Before the committee meeting took place, he was murdered.
Vilhelm Bjerknes was no terrorist, yet the committee begrudged him the prize. The Norwegian meteorologist was nominated more than 50 times for a Nobel Prize. He never got it. The same happened to German physicist Friedrich Paschen who was nominated 45 times.
It's hard to imagine, but Adolf Hitler was once on the list of nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize. Swedish member of parliament Erik Brandt had nominated him. The nomination was made in protest in 1939. Erik Brandt was outraged that shortly before, British Prime Minister Chamberlain was proposed because of his policy of appeasement. Brandt removed the nomination later. However, it is still shown on the official website of the Nobel Committee.Further reading Prophet of The Great WarRobert Koch: With System Against DiseaseFirst Family of Science
ITV, usually in the lead when catching Tom Daley for a show, failed in getting him onto I'm a Celebrity 2013. Rumours have it that Tom Daley has turned down a £250,000 offer to appear in the most brainless show ITV has the honour of putting on every year. As it is also a show for has-been D-listers, I don't think Tom Daley should really be on it. |
| Tom Daley |
While it had been repeatedly reported that the Olympic diving star said he would be up for a stint in the jungle, the offer was either not good enough, or the timing was just off as he has enough other commitments not least with ITV. And Tom Daley has been criticized in the past for not concentrating enough on his diving career.And he already has two TV commitments to juggle around his diving. There is the second series of celebrity diving show Splash as well as a fly-on-the-wall documentary series. If you haven't seen Splash last time round, make time for it this year. While the celebrity diving is not too inspiring, the diving shows put on by the professionals are something not to miss out on.But for Tom Daley to let other stunts go by seems a wise decision. Unlike most I'm a Celebrity contestants, his career is not over and he won't join the old age pensioners next year. So who are the non-entities that are rumoured to become part of the trashy display?
A former Apprentice winner by name of Stella English is set for the jungle after claiming to be broke. Seemingly she messed up on her job with Lord Sugar. I couldn't tell you more as I usually don't usually follow second rate celebrities except if they are really amusing.
“Stella’s basically claiming The Apprentice ruined her life, which would make great viewing if she dished the dirt. It would also be a good way for ITV to have a little dig at Lord Sugar and rival channel BBC,” a source told the Daily Star Sunday. “Although nothing is finalised yet producers are confident Stella will sign on the dotted line. It’s a great opportunity to ease her money worries and repair her image.”
Other names linked to this year’s series include Paul Gascoigne (a broke footballer if I'm not mistaken), Michael Le Vell (a minor actor in a minor TV series), and an Emmerdale actress by name of Lucy Pargeter (I was told she was Chas Spencer, one of the names would probably be from the TV series, one her acting name?) Who knows or cares.
There are more names bandied about. One of the thousand or more former X Factor singers on the list is Rylan Clark whose career has stopped after never taking off. There is also one Lucy Mecklenburgh from The Only Way Is Essex (TOWIE), one of the most pointless TV productions if you ignore I'm a Celebrity.
Further readingSplash Line-up Next RoundTom Daley Calendar 2014Diving World Championship 2013
When a graffiti containing the words 'Banksy Oct. 2013' appeared in Los Angeles a few weeks ago, it was clear the anonymous celebrity artist was planning a new exhibition. As usual, there were pretty few clues as to where it would take place. Now the secret is out: New York's streets have the honour of being embellished under the title "Better Out Than In".
Just like in a traditional exhibition, the catalog with an image description is not missing. The form is not the usual one, though. It comes in the form of a phone number displayed near the graffiti. People calling the toll free number will get to listen to shallow hotel lounge music and a recorded text:
"Hello, and welcome to lower Manhattan. Before you, you will see a spray art by the artist Bansky [sic]. Or maybe not. It's probably been painted over by now. (…) The children in this case represent youth, and the sign represents – well, signs. (...) This piece is typical of Bansky's output."
Some of his works were recently auctioned in England for several 100,000 pounds after they had been callously removed from various walls in California or England thus depriving the intended public of their enjoyment. Banksy shows that despite the rampant greed of lowly house owners and thieving real estate companies, he hasn't lost either playfulness or wit. Banksy's works are known for their irony, unconventional content, and black humour; all this is far removed from the understanding of the limited intellect of the low lives stealing them from the communities. Graffiti on public walls are (mostly) illegal, and that leaves the artist exposed to controversy. The reviews range from "Master of Street Art" from the knwoledgeable to "pure vandalism" by the usual critics not creative enough to even form a full sentence. Banksy keeps his identity a successful secret. To a supposed revelation of his identity a few years ago, he responded in his inimitable style: "I am unable to comment on who may or may not be Banksy, but anyone described as being 'good at drawing' does not sound like Banksy to me."
Even though the guerrilla artist has arrived at the pinnacle of the exact establishment which he mocks with his art, he leaves his art out on the road for the public and the communities to be enjoyed - with all negative consequences that entails. Shortly after the publication of the photos on Banksy's website, the exact location of the graffiti in New York was found and shared through social media media.
As the speaker on the recorded catalog description had predicted, the graffiti located in the Lower East Side was partially destroyed only few hours after its discovery: The sign with the spray can had been removed. Almost 24 hours later, the wall was completely repainted. Pure vandalism.
Further readingHow Money Came to Dominate Our LivesThe President's SlavesMuseum City: Basel
RSS Feed
Twitter
