We will never forget, but I don't want to understand

Last Monday I changed the mode on my alarm clock from "radio" to "bird chitter".

During the course of the morning I unfollowed on Facebook every source that used to update me on breaking news.

When I walked to work, I deliberately looked away from the newspaper stands outside of the shops I passed.

All of these actions were grounded in the same basic motivation: enough is enough.

Though in reality, it isn't enough. It's just getting started.


It seems we've become a country of reluctant news junkies here in Norway. It's been nine months, but the memories of the horrors of the events on the 22nd of July last year are as strong as ever. We've been through stages of shock, sorrow and anger, and now it is - perhaps - the time for comprehension. At least I think that is the reason why even those of us who rather would close our eyes to the whole thing still feel obliged to pay some attention to the circus that started last week: the trial.

It's absurd, of course, to even try to comprehend the - in lack of a better word - evil that lies behind the killing of 77 people in two coordinated attacks. One bomb. Several hundred gun shots.

I'm not sure, though, that it is beneficial to comprehend too much. It lies in our nature, perhaps, to try to figure things out, to understand, to explain. But in reality, I don't want to have to spend my time or energy on this man. I don't even want to hate him - what purpose would that serve? Reading about what he says or has written makes me feel ill. His picture too. That face I don't even want to know, but which has been etched in so that I will never forget the pudgy, pale, wax-like skin; the narrow, close-set eyes; the much-talked-about post-surgery nose.  The other day I made the mistake of watching a video clip of him to hear his voice - and I found myself thinking it was feminine and cold and disgusting. Objectively speaking, I am sure he looks and sounds no worse than the next guy, but I cannot be objective. And it bothers me, immensely, that I don't want to be. I want to feel physically ill from looking at him or hearing his voice, and consequently, I am letting him affect me more than he deserves.

The focus on him - the terrorist whose name I don't even want to say or write - annoys me. Obviously it's difficult to avoid, the attack having been a one-man-job. I get how this character fascinates people. The combination of a delusional self-image and extremist political ideas, plus the will and ability to go through with his [insert ten minutes worth of thoughts to try to come up with an adjective that accurately describes this. "Gruesome", "cold-blooded" or "morbid" didn't quite do the trick] plan. As a mental case, he is doubtlessly interesting. But I'm not a psychiatrist. I'm a regular person wondering whether it's really necessary to spend so much time, ink and words on a man who already hurt us all so much.

Ironically, here I am spending both time, words and the electronic equivalent of ink on him.

In reality, though, what ought to be the focus isn't him, or his wacked ideology. Rather, his actions should be. He will be prosecuted for what he did, not what he believes in. It seems the media forgot this detail.

I have faith in the system. I trust that the court will pass a fair judgment, under the available laws. I trust that this will mean that he will never again set his foot outside a prison as a free man. And that will be that. Until then, I don't need the details. I don't want to spend more time than necessary on this. I don't want to give him that.

The Weight of the World

As of late I've been carrying the weight of the world on my shoulders. I know that I, as a historian, should be able to distance myself from the terrible things I read about. I should be able to treat it professionally, and without letting my own emotions or morality get in the way.

The problem isn't that I can't. The problem is that I won't.

World War Two. The largest conflict in human history. Unfathomably large numbers of people killed, wounded and abused. Unspeakable atrocities on all sides. If World War One was what lost us our innocense, World War Two certainly confirmed that there was no way back. The loss of civilian lives were not only collateral damage in this war; civillians were targets.

Reading about air raids, firebombings, Manchuria and - last but definitely not least - the atomic bombs, I feel obliged to remember that this is more than numbers and figures. It's about people. People who suffered. Who died.

And it's about people who made decisions.

Good people? Evil people? Somewhere-in-between people?

People we with time can laugh of, even if their decisions had extreme consequences.

Consequences I want to keep in mind, even if they make my days bleaker.

No one if neutral or objective in history. No one should be. Even if we need to understand more than one aspect; we're allowed (and, in my mind, bound), to have opinions and bias. You just need to be aware of it, and try not to let it affect your professional work too much.

If you want to carry the weight of the world too, you may watch the video below. It is long. But it should make you feel something. (And not just about atomic bombs, if you make it past the first ten minutes)

My sincerest appologies for forsaking "Writing Wednesday" for "Cruella pours her heart out (but still couldn't resist the photoshopped image of the 'big three'...)".

Mandsikjhfeuidfgyireifgsdfgwrgfwrifgi

I swear, the title of this post is extremely accurate. It reflects *exactly* what is going on in my head at the moment. What went on in my head yesterday, when I was supposed to post this. Topical Tuesday. I even had a topic (St. Lucy's Day), or exams (very topical for me, since I am going through them at the moment, albeit in a very different way than I've ever done before because I'm not taking them this year, but rather grading them... I swear, I'd rather take them!), or even the weather (we're having spring, I'm sure - all our lovely snow seems to be melting! Drat!)

But no. Before I had the chance to transfer my ideas to paper (or, more accurately, screen), they ended up in fhegiakfiutygihbhjgilwdjafgyg and *poof* I forgot the whole post. Until now. When I write it, it will still be up for an hour and a half before the next one (and much better one, I'm sure) ticks in. Not that it is a huge loss. I'm sure today's actual post will be much more thought-through and well-written than this one, not to mention the topic will not be lkhjefiudshfjkhfuiryifkdghfshdgfj.

In the meantime, though, let me muse a little over cbnsdjkghdgcsdcuhjasdgj:

Papers that need to be graded, need to be graded.

Jobs that need to be done, need to be done.

In English, you cannot write "they claims" and expect to get away with it. It are annoying!

Sometimes you have to make sacrifices. Sometimes they suck.

Friends are essential.

Suck it up!

Can you have your cake and eat it too? Won't we always try?

What's in a smile? When a person lights up when seeing you, should you draw hasty conclusions?

We want what we can't have, we hold on to what we don't need, and sometimes it's impossible to see the difference.

It doesn't matter what you believe in. Believe.

Yoga and boxing.

Wsdofhudgfiuweyjkcfjdyfuweudpqwuiryfwyfuvjgai.

Topical Tuesday: The United Nations' International Day of Peace

Tomorrow is a special holiday. I hope some of you have heard about it, but I suspect many have not. It’s the International Peace Day. It’s funny, really, that it’s a relatively unknown date for most of us, while in reality it should be the most important of all. They make cards for Groundhog Day, after all, but I have yet to see one for the day in celebration of world peace.

Anyway. I wrote about this last year, and if you want an inspirational tale about how the UN peace day originated in the ideas of one man, you should go read that post. Here, though, I’d like to talk a little about the concept of peace.

You see, I’ve forced myself to spend some time contemplating this the last few years. I’ve written papers about peace – or rather, the lack of peace. The Middle East is positively a smorgasbord for the latter. It depends, though, on how you define peace. Is it lack of war? If so, what is war? A technical definition – more than 1000 people killed in a conflict – isn’t always sufficient to cover the human aspect. I think most of us would agree that a conflict killing 999 people is also a war, and that the number of people killed isn’t necessarily what makes the situations in Libya or Afghanistan or Iraq wars.

Peace can also be considered the lack of other vital things, such as food, human rights, or safety. But again it’s difficult to draw the lines. Is the ongoing famine in Somalia a war? Not really. But decades of wars and conflicts and lack of a proper authority in the country are important causes for the disaster. And the flow of refugees, trying to escape the barren lands to find food, is a potential new source of conflict. Horrible stories of people being shot to death at attempts of crossing military check points to seek help are showing what a complex and terrible situation this really is. The soldiers, often from various clans in the malfunctioning state, are there to oversee the distribution of emergency aid. Instead, many of them kill or rape the very people they are supposed to help. Definitely not peace, even if it’s also not war.

This week – today, even – world leaders are gathering in New York to hold a high-level meeting in the United Nations. One of the major topics is the possible membership of a Palestinian state. As mentioned, the Middle East has seen many wars the past century, and the Israel/Palestine conflict is at the very heart of the problem. Sadly, there appears to be no solution in immediate sight, and even the case for membership for Palestine is slim, if not non-existent. Still, the fact that the Palestinian authority is now trying to use the United Nations – an organization created to preserve peace – as a means to reach the goal of establishment of a Palestinian state is in itself a positive sign, in my opinion. Also, the focus on the economy of such a state, necessary reforms and the creation of institutions is perhaps a more constructive and realistic approach than the chance of achieving recognition ever was. Principles are important, but sometimes actions speak louder than words. Hopefully a two-state solution where Palestine has been consolidated into an actual, functioning state can help provide some stability and structure also for the peace process. At least we’re allowed to hope.

Many of my thoughts about peace are coloured by the “official” Norwegian attitude, which among other things is coloured by the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded in Oslo each autumn. Last year, an outspoken human rights activist from China won the award. Former laureates include other human rights and democracy-activists, environmentalist,and people working for poverty reduction. In addition to the more traditional concept of peace, these new areas contribute to an understanding that peace is more than just lack of war. In my master’s thesis I concluded that during the period 1956 to 1967 there were few (if any) attempts by the United States to perform tradition peace initiatives. There were, however, a number of initiatives directed at specific conflict areas, such as refugees, to try to limit the tension in the overall conflict. Already in the 1950s and 60s, then,there was an acknowledgement that peace is more than just lack of war. In the21^st century, this should not be controversial at all.

Thus I wish the world leaders the best of luck in their attempts to work towards peace, whether it is in the Middle East, in other troublesome regions, or in a more general “world peace” perspective. They will not be able to fix it today, tomorrow, or next week. But hopefully the steps taken today, tomorrow, next week and for the years to come, will be steps in the right direction. We should never give up hope. And we should always celebrate the international peace day.

This weekend I had the dubious honour of baby sitting a room.

Actually, it wasn't so much the room, as all the stuff inside the room. You see, we had an event at the embassy, with lots of kids and adults who weren't always entirely sober. Now, the main part of the event took place outside, since the weather was gorgeous, but since we couldn't be sure of that in advance, we had also prepared some indoors activities, in our lovely multipurpose hall.

The problem with this hall is the multipurpose part. There is a rather expensive AV-system there, and the walls are peppered with buttons and touch pads that control the AV-system, the air-conditioner, the lightning, the blinds, and so on. There is even a red button with a sign above it reading it capital letters - DO NOT TOUCH!!!  Obviously, this would be terribly tempting to touch...

Thus the baby sitting.

During my guard duty, two girls of about ten were playing in the hall. They were just that age. A little too young to realize the full consequence of their every action, but definitely old enough to know when they were doing something they were not supposed to. It goes without saying that they pushed the button.

Now, as far as DO NOT TOUCH!!!-buttons go, ours is relatively innocent. The only thing that happens is that it messes with the settings for the system, so it creates extra work for the next person using it. Hardly comparable to what I'm about to compare it with, but bear with me...

You see, these girls, knowing that they shouldn't be doing something, but not being able to resist it anyway, made me think of something else that is never far away from my thoughts these days. All things nuclear.

Mother nature produced radiation. But for the most part, she kept it neatly tucked away, out of our reach. As man grew old enough to realize there was something his mother was holding back, he decided to ignore that he didn't know exactly what consequences pushing the button would have, and just do it, even if he knew he probably shouldn't.

Humans wanted so bad to use these resources hidden from us. We put our best scientists to the task. They got some great results. Marie Curie's discoveries led to great achievements in medicine, but she eventually gave her life to her research. Like a Mummy's Curse, injuries from long-term radiation came sneaking in on the eminent scientist unexpectedly. Perhaps we should have taken this as a warning, and been content? Use x-rays and avoid developing these substances we did not know how to control further?

But there were more buttons to push. The power contained in the tiniest piece of all - the atom - was too tempting not to explore further. Like the explorers desperate to win the race to the South Pole in 1911, the curiosity - and perhaps the glory? - was too much to resist. In 1911 Robert Scott died in attempt to get back from the pole, after having discovered that he had been beaten by a countryman of mine, Roald Amundsen. Scott took four expedition members with him in death, people who willingly (I presume) had gone with him to try to be the first to go where no man had gone. The nuclear scientists who tried to do what no man had done,  also took others with them in death. Only the numbers are infinitely larger, and the willingness is more than questionable.

Japan knows the effect the enormous powers contained within a minuscule fraction can have. This nation has felt it up close, even if it is a long time ago. Stories of the horrors experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 66 years ago have been a part of what every Japanese child has been taught about their own country ever since. And yet. Japan too had to go nuclear when it came to energy.

I get it, in a way. With the bombs ending World War Two, then the subsequent 45 year standoff between the US and the USSR where both parties held enough nukes to destroy the planet multiple times. It must have felt good to finally be able to put the atomic power to positive use again. Nuclear didn't have to be a synonym to weapons. Power plants! Peaceful use of this wonderful energy!

How clever they must have felt, when the first nuclear power plant opened. It worked! It really did! It generated electricity, it was (relatively) cheap, it was - marvelously so - CLEAN! The nuclear age was upon us, and it was every bit as wonderful as imagined. People didn't even turn into spider-superheroes or other cartoony predictions. We touched the button, and the button had delivered.

Of course there was Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas warned us in The China Syndrome. Hippies sold anti-nuclear stickers. But the hippies also sold "save the planet"-stickers, and nuclear power plants was the only way to ensure stable, large-quantity, energy supplies that were also environmentally friendly. You can't have both, hippies.

I must admit I haven't been particularly nuclearly aware in my life. Norway doesn't have nuclear power plants - we don't really need them, due to an abundance of hydropower and then the oil and gas, of course. We have neighbours whose plants we aren't too fond of - an accident at the Russian plants in Murmansk, the British ones in Sellafield, or even the Swedish ones, might prove disastrous to Norway. We actually still have problems after Chernobyl, which due to the direction of the wind those fateful weeks in 1986 ensured that a significant amount of radioactive material ended up in the Norwegian mountains. But it never felt very close.

Here, in Japan, it definitely does. I've stood with you, Japan, through the crisis. I admired your high-held heads, your dignified grief, your determined reconstruction starting from day one. But if there is one thing I find hard to forgive in the midst of this, it is the nukes. Whose delusional idea was it to build a massive amount of nuclear power plants on a seismic fault line? Didn't it occur to you that even your superior technology might not be able to harness the wrath of Mother Earth once she decided that we had gone too far in pushing the buttons she deliberately asked us not to touch?

Those two girls discovered that pushing that particular button had limited effect. I asked them - a little sternly - not to touch anything, and explained why. They agreed not to do it again, and to my knowledge, they kept their promise. The system had to be reset, but nothing was broken.

The same cannot be said for the nuclear button. We pushed too hard, this time. It's time to find something else to play with.