Religion, Spirituality and Values

So, 21st Century Enlightenment, is it?

Martyn Richard Jones — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:40:46 GMT

In the UK, Matthew Taylor of the Royal Society of Artists has come up with a brand new big idea, which is being touted as a call for calling for a "21st-century Enlightenment". This was my response to an article by Madeleine Bunting (guardian.co.uk, Sunday 13 June 2010 21.00 BST), Comment is free - Hail the 21st-century Enlightenment - Ideas don't come much bigger. We need to live very differently, argues a bold new text. And that calls for nothing less than a revolution of the mind.

Here is my response:

Over the two decades we have seen leaders of western democracies failing to heed the lessons of history; we have seen the likes of Blair and Bush turn western enlightenment on its head in order to justify the unjustifiable, and the abuse and misuse of institutions born out the lessons of history and the spirit of the enlightenment.

Of course, the values and notions of empathy and empathic concern are not new, even though the results of scientific research have provided additional theoretical support – see Jeremy Rifkin, The Empathic Civilisation.

But, is Mathew Taylor really doing anything more than polymorphism to represent a unified and repackaged view of aspects of the enlightenment, evolutionary biology, neuro-cognitive science, pedagogy , child development, Judaeo–Christian values, etcetera, and in order to revive interest in the fundamentals of the original enlightenment and its impact on society, as it were, a re-launch of the enlightenment dressed in 21st century social-democratic clothing?

Of course, conspiring to pretend that 21st Century Enlightenment is new and as potentially significant as the first European Enlightenment, relies on a mirage, the mirage of the enlightenment seen from a 21st century perspective. That is, our current viewpoints and our modern references can be used to recreate the enlightenment, even to the extent of pretending all of this was invented by some bloke in New Labour in 2010. Of course it can be claimed to be new, but that is a mistake. From the fundamental aspects of its broad sweep of philosophy we can even call 21st century Enlightenment modern, but in reality, it is not something new, and is certainly something far older than New Labour’s philandering with bourgeois liberalism and it’s dalliances with the soulnessness and debasing influence of the third way.

Of course, I take issues with academics who take intellectual autism to extremes, and I find Gray’s criticism of Rifkin’s ideas to be somewhat problematic, because they seem to have been derived not only from an intellectual stance, but one that seems far from empathic. In addition, whilst agreeing that empathy (as defined by Simon Baron-Cohen, etc) is something very important in a decent society, there are other aspects and values that must also be considered, such as: gratitude, honesty, sincerity, responsibility, generosity, solidarity, wisdom, learning, self-control, sensitivity, sacrifice, constructive criticism, detachment, optimism, love, compassion , responsibility, will, understanding, patience, friendship, loyalty, respect, joy, etc.

Simply stated, after the neo-liberal, neo-conservative and post-modern mugging that the European Enlightenment has suffered in the last decades, and with all the subsequent obfuscating spin, bluff and bluster that has been used against the values of the enlightenment, it’s perhaps time that we were reintroduced to the fundamental richness, values and the lessons that can be learned from the enlightenment.

But, my main concerns are thus:

1) Are the people who have brought it upon themselves to re-launch the enlightenment in the UK, really the most appropriate people to do so, and, does it matter?

2) Is this re-launch of the enlightenment going to be anything like the third way re-launch of Labour in its New Labour guise, a re-foundation that is deliberately designed to exclude a whole swathe of public and published opinion, whether they are atheists, liberal democrats, democratic-socialists or the Marxist left.

3) Is this a cunning way of reformulating the enlightenment by going back and reforming Locke, picking and mixing some Rousseau and some Kant (conveniently forgetting the categorical imperative), and then fast forwarding to the future, conveniently missing out Hegel, Feuerbach and Marx, to name just three, and packaging it all in the same way that New Labour was branded?

Let’s hope this isn’t just some more cynical and expedient posturing and manoeuvring, eh.

Israel: State of Jews or Jewish State?

Martyn Richard Jones — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:26:00 GMT

ISRAEL. STATE OF THE JEWS OR JEWISH STATE?

The situation between Israel and Palestinians in the middle east is tremendously confusing, not least because of the marked tendency to overplay the positive and to play down, and then deny, the negative aspects in ones own camp.

Here'a an example of toxic crass stupidity writ large:

If there were indeed schools of Zionist thought that debated such issues they would be in Hebrew and it is interesting how Martyn would cope with that.

I would include the numerous possibilities that occurred to me if I did not have experience that the moderators tend to delete comments that they can't understand,

This intellectually challenged cheerleader, who claims to live in Israel, has never heard about differences of opinion within Zionism? Yet, not only that, claims that one would need to understand Hebrew in order to be able to detect these inexistent divergences of opinion.

1. Background

In common with many other people, I occasionally waste time commenting on internet blogs. One recent blog was an article written by Maajid Nawaz (Director of the Quilliam Foundation), and it basically argued that "just as Islamists should not call for nations exclusively for Muslims, Jews should not label Israel as a Jewish state".

Here is the original article: Israel must be a secular state for all citizens

My first comment on reading the article was:

I suppose that's entirely up to the Israelis, isn't it? I mean, I want the UK to be a democratic, secular, constitutional, egalitarian, civil society, where the rule of law prevails, and international treaties (UDHR, etc) are the highest laws of the land. I think it's a good plan to follow, but I'm not ready to impose that on anyone, outside [of] what I consider to be my political sphere.

Which apparently was not seen as too controversial.

Later, on the same thread, I responded to PaulLambert, another commentator on the blog, who had written:

17 Jun 09, 1:03pm
It doesn't take a genius to work out why so many Palestinian Arabs are reluctant to recognise Israel as 'the Jewish state'.

My reply, which I admit to be moderately polemic, was as follows:

You know, the argument over whether Israel is a Jewish state or is a state of the Jews, has been another cause of division between Zionists for many years.

What Nethanyahu and others are doing, and let's make no mistake about it, they know what they are doing, in demanding that the Palestinians recognize Irsael, not only as a sovereign state recognized in international law, but as the Jewish State, means that they are asking the Palestinians to endorse one faction of Zionism over all the rest. In effect, they are seeking to legitimate their position on this issue of "Jewish State" or "state of Jews" through Palestinians.

So, not only is it an issue for the Palestinians but also a divisive game that divides Zionists and Israeli nationalists, even more so.

That is a somewhat unprincipled and cynical political ploy IMHO

Of course, then the politically incorrect brigade jump down my throat, not for the polemical analysis, but simply for suggesting that there is even a plurality of opinion on the "fact" that Israel is the "Jewish State".

I followed this up with the following:

Surely the recognition of the State of Israel, as a sovereign state, with an inalienable right to exist, to conduct its own affairs, and to be assured the inviolability of its international borders, is enough, isn't it?

I would be interested in knowing who else, to date, has specifically recognised Israel as "the Jewish State"?

The reaction was as if I'd been directly responsible for some kind of gross sacrilege.

Anyway, here's what Eric Yoffie had to say in an opinion piece published by Forward (The Jewish Daily):

First of all, what does the term “Jewish state” mean? Does it refer, for example, to a state governed completely or in part by Halacha, by traditional Jewish law? Does it refer to a particular set of linguistic, cultural and educational policies that the state will adopt? In my experience, if you put a half-dozen Jewish Israelis in a room and ask them what it means for Israel to be a Jewish state, you will receive four or five different answers, along with at least one indignant insistence that the phrase has no meaning whatsoever. Debates among American Jews on the topic are no less heated.

These ongoing debates about the meaning of a Jewish state are good for Israel, as are the serious and intense discussions taking place about the proper relationship of a Jewish state to its non-Jewish minority. These are highly charged issues that will not be resolved easily or soon. But making the debate a part of the diplomatic landscape is a decidedly bad idea.

Obviously I'm not the only one to have a divergence of opinion with the "my team, right or wrong" crowd.

2. Video Introduction

The first reference item in this blog article is a short documentary called "ISRAEL: A JEWISH STATE OR A STATE FOR JEWS".

It is described as an "Excellent indepth video seeking to answer: how Jewish should the Jewish state be?"

The video was produced by The Joint Authority for Jewish Zionist Education, Youth and Hechalutz Department.

3. A round of quotes

Here are what some people had to say about the issue of a Jewish State or a state for/of the Jews:

Amnon Rubinstein, former Chairman of the Knesset Law and Constitution Committee, an Israeli law scholar, politician, and columnist. A member of the Knesset between 1977 and 2002, he served in several ministerial positions. He is currently dean of the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya and a patron of Liberal International:

Thus the Jews’ own state would... be, as Herzl entitled his famous booklet Der Judenstaat, a state of the Jews, hardly a Jewish state.

Shulamit Aloni is an Israeli politician and left-wing activist. She is a prominent member of the Israeli peace camp, founded the Ratz party and was leader of the Meretz party and served as Minister of Education from 1992 to 1993:

I do not accept the idea of a “Jewish state.” It is a “state of the Jews,” to be exact. Herzl wrote a book called The State of the Jews.

Moshe Zimmermann is an Israeli historian and publicist. Since 1986 he is director of the “Richard-Koebner-Center for German History“ at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In 1993 he was honoured with the Humboldt-Prize, in 1997 with the Jacob-and Wilhelm Grimm Prize of the German Academic Exchange Service, in 2002 with the Dr.Leopold-Lucas-Prize of the university of Tuebingen and in 2006 the Lessing-Prize for critique. His focus of research are the social history of the 18th and 20th century of Germany as well as of the German Jews and Anti-Semitism:

In Israel... the Herzlian concept of a “state of the Jews” is developing in the direction of a blatantly ethnocentric “Jewish state”....

Amos Oz is an Israeli writer, novelist, and journalist. He is also a professor of literature at Ben-Gurion University in Be'er Sheva. Since 1967, he has been a prominent advocate of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2008 he received an Honorary Degree from the University of Antwerp. He also received the Dan David prize in 2008 for "Creative Rendering of the Past":

Herzl’s book was called The State of the Jews and not The Jewish State: A state cannot be Jewish, any more than a chair or a bus can be Jewish....

4. More On Zionism

Zionism is predominantly, but not exclusively, seen as one of the various manifestations of nationalism. Amongst secular and non-secular Jews there was and is disagreement over what should be the nature and form of Zionism. This discourse and disagreement covered the spectrum between the exclusive nationalism of the Revisionists led by Vladimir Jabotinsky and and the all-inclusive nature of the nationalist camp headed by Martin Buber.

Jabotisnky warned that the conflict with the Arabs was inevitable that talk of compromise and negotiation would have no sway with the local population. This contrasted with the completely inclusive Zionism of the philosopher Martin Buber, who in 1925, together with his followers, founded Brit Shalom (the Peace Covenant). Brit Shalom called for mutual reconciliation between the Jewish and Arab national movements in Palestine. Buber discarded the idea of Zionism as simply another national movement and wished instead to create an exemplary society. He argued that such a society should embrace Jewish domination of the Arabs. It was therefore incumbent on the Zionist movement to reach a consensus with the Arabs even at the cost of the Jews remaining a minority in the land. Brit Shalom embraced the idea of bi-nationalism and saw in its promise of a single state the moral and just resolution to a heartbreaking and tragic conflict. A third major faction of Zionism born of the curiously and frequently conflictive partnership of David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizmann took a more pragmatic stance, and although they were also committed to the enterprise of a Jewish State, they attuned their position in accordance with the shifting conditions in Palestine and elsewhere.

Zionism therefore came from Europe, and was in main a reaction to the evolving nationalism of European peoples and the increase in anti-Semitism in Europe. European nationalism had two key drivers: the exaltation of feeling and identity, which characterized the nationalistic romantic period in arts, and the Liberal requirement that a legitimate state is about people rather than, for example, a dynasty, a deity or imperial domination. In defining national identity in Europe, there were two distinct approaches. One was the all-inclusive approach, anyone who accepted loyalty to the state was a citizen, and the other was to define citizenship in ethnic terms. Therefore, not all nationalisms ended up as chauvinistic and destructive, but the nature of all nationalism determined the necessity of boundaries.

To put things in simpler terms, the rise of bourgeois nationalism in Europe went hand in hand with a marked increase in xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Many more Jewish Europeans became victims of the consequences of this nationalism, and added weight to the fact that they were, to some extent, marginalized in all societies in which they lived. Jewish Europeans saw how the nationalists used their nationalism as a way to reduce their alienation and to claim their positions in society; it was therefore hardly surprising that some Jews took the idea of nationalism to be both a threat and as a way of protecting themselves.

Therefore, it should not be so difficult to see how, from these and other social-economic imperatives, the various nationalist interpretations of Zionism were gradually brought into being.

5. A Liberal's View

Noah Nissani (Beersheva) in an article titled "Post Holocaust Adaptation of Jabotinsky Peace Plan" (and translated from Hebrew) wrote:

Today's Iron Wall must guarantee the security of the Jews, both in Israel and abroad, even in demographic conditions that would not be in our favor. The first step that must be taken as soon as possible, for the sake of all the people of our country, is to replace the current regime with a Liberal Democratic constitution. It should be based on a mutual consideration of the real needs of all the social components in the "State of the Jews and all its citizens". We must insist on including in the new constitution, based on two communal autonomies, the following conditions:

1) To safeguard the security of the Jews in their land and abroad:

a) Since the Jews are and will be a minority wherever they live and Israel is the only Jewish state, every Jew must have the right to be a citizen of the state at any time and regardless of his / her location of residence.

b) Since the Jews are and will be a minority in the Arab-Muslim world, security and immigration policies will be determined exclusively by the authorities of the Jewish autonomy.

2) To secure equal civil rights for all citizens, regardless of the majority's will, both autonomies will receive equal representation in all branches of the joint government.

D) To guarantee full civil, national and religious rights to all the state's citizens, most of the roles and powers of government will be transferred from the central authorities to the two communal autonomies.

There evidently are divergences of opinion about what a state should constitute, and plainly, this is no different in Israel. What is alarming is the maniacal way in which some elements of extreme rightwing fundamentalism not only argue that alternate opinions, views and arguments are mistake, false or even lies, but that they are quite capable of denying the very existence of plurality. Especially when it comes to sensitive arguments, for which they are intellectually and emotionally ill equipped to deal with.

6. Actors and Players

Theodor Herzl was an Austro-Hungarian journalist and the father of modern political Zionism.

Herzl was born in Pest (today the eastern half of Budapest, Hungary) to a Jewish family originally from Zemun, the Kingdom of Hungary (today in Serbia). When Theodor was 18, his family moved to Vienna, Austria-Hungary. There, he studied Law, but he devoted himself almost exclusively to journalism and literature, working as a correspondent for the Neue Freie Presse in Paris, occasionally making special trips to London and Istanbul. Later, he became literary editor of Neue Freie Presse, and wrote several comedies and dramas for the Viennese stage.

As a young man, Herzl was engaged in a Burschenschaft association, which strove for German unity under the motto Ehre, Freiheit, Vaterland ("Honor, Freedom, Fatherland"), and his early work did not focus on Jewish life. His work was of the feuilleton order, descriptive rather than political.

Did Herzl work for a state of the Jews or a Jewish state? Herzl essentially saw that state as a secular entity. It was to be a haven of safe refuge for harassed Jews, rather than a vibrant centre of Jewish spiritual life.

Martin Buber was an Austrian-born Jewish philosopher best known for his philosophy of dialogue, a religious existentialism centered on the distinction between the I-Thou relationship and the I-It relationship.

Buber, together with a number of key Central European Zionist activists and intellectuals, including Shmuel Hugo Bergman, Gershom Scholem, and Henrietta Szold, participated in political organizations like Brit Shalom and the Ichud, which worked toward Jewish-Arab rapprochement. Zionism would succeed, they argued, only if it would find a way to reconcile the equally legitimate claims of both Jews and Arabs to some form of national self-determination in the Land of Israel.

Their insistence on an equality of national rights led them to support voluntary Jewish limits on immigration as a tactic to build trust with the Arabs, and the establishment of a bi-national state where both groups would find national-cultural expression through a sharing of political power.

Martin Buber's vision of Zionism is in marked contrast with the "scaffolding of corruption" and "... foundations of oppression and injustice" peddled by some denizens of web forums.

Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg, primarily known by his Hebrew name and pen name, Ahad Ha'am, was a Hebrew essayist, and one of the foremost pre-state Zionist thinkers. With his secular vision of a Jewish "spiritual center" in Palestine he confronted Theodor Herzl. Unlike Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, Ha'am strived for "a Jewish state and not merely a state of Jews".

It's there, in black and white, for all to see. Ha'am strived for "a Jewish state and not merely a state of Jews". What next, will the rightwing "my team, right or wrong" crowd be denouncing the works of Herzl?

--- to be completed ---

7. Say what? A sideline

When I was a child in Wales, an Uncle of mine used to tell me jokes, one of them went something along the lines of:"What is a Zionist?" the answer to which was "A Jew who takes the money of a second Jew in order to send a third Jew to Palestine."

Well, at least the money was once spent on sending Jews to Israel, and not spent on lifting anti-Semitic racists out of poverty traps in Eastern Europe and then planting them where their reactionary nastiness can be given full rein.

8. Conclusions

Your guess is as good as mine.

--- to be completed ---

Seven Kids from the Valleys - Part One of Seven

Martyn Richard Jones — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:28:00 GMT

1

Tell her it's the game, the only game that really matters.
Tell her it belongs to us.
Don't tell her it's only ours. We know people who say this are not right in the head.
Don't tell her that they'll tamp us. Not that it matters, it's only a game.
Tell her their team is far more shambolic than ours. Tell her it isn't a lie, that it's poetic license. Tell her it's humour. Tell her.

Tell her she'll have bara brith for tea. No, tell her she'll have burger and chips for supper.
Tell her to jump up and down on the settee. Tell we're not losing, and that Max told us it was just a problem with the sound.
Tell her the TV will fix itself, just bash it on the side mun!

Tell her we'll sing, Ogi! Ogi! Ogi!, Cwm Rhondda and You're all going home in a Caerphilly school bus.
Tell her to sing louder than the neighbours and their stupid bloody yappy bloody little bloody puppy.
Tell her to shout and sing even if we're losing by a thousand, especially if we are losing by a million, and the ref is a duffer, and a bit of a flighty one, and needs glasses.

No, don't tease her … we never lose, even when we lose .. fer'ages!

Tell her we will win; tell her we will always win, tell her we'll knock their bloody, bloody blocks off.
Even if we lose everything for a (very, very, very) long time.
Say we will, we will, we will.
Tell her we will rise again, come back again, get our wits about us, again.
Tell her we'll be fire breathing dragons again. No, don't tell her that. That's right mental that is.

Tell her something about the boys who played and the girls that made them.
Tell her they're the greatest in the game; whose game? Our game!
Tell her it's a story that the world will love to hear, over and over, and over and over, again and again.

Tell her Barry John, Gareth Edwards, Phil Bennett, JPR, and all their butties, will never go away.
Tell her she can make them come back again, tell her to switch the DVD on, tell her to get the beer from the fridge. We'll come back. By magic, by mountain magic, we'll make them come back again.

And, always to sing, even if she feels like a bag of nerves, even is she feels like dying. Dying for a glass of pop.

Part 1 - http://www.itsmarty.com/archive/2009/06/07/kids_valleys_1_7.aspx
Part 2 - http://www.itsmarty.com/archive/2009/06/07/kids_valleys_2_7.aspx
Part 3 - http://www.itsmarty.com/archive/2009/06/07/kids_valleys_3_7.aspx
Part 4 - http://www.itsmarty.com/archive/2009/06/07/kids_valleys_4_7.aspx
Part 5 - http://www.itsmarty.com/archive/2009/06/07/kids_valleys_5_7.aspx
Part 6 - http://www.itsmarty.com/archive/2009/06/07/kids_valleys_6_7.aspx
Part 7 - http://www.itsmarty.com/archive/2009/06/07/kids_valleys_7_7.aspx

LGBT - Political Correctness Gone Mad

Martyn Richard Jones — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:31:00 GMT

This blog post is a work in progress.

The following post was made in response to arguments on the CiF blog that were prompted by the excellent article by Jane Czyzselska regarding homophobia, discrimination and celebrities who make gay 'jokes'.

Jonathan Ross's gay 'joke' was wrong: Homophobia and discrimination are still rife around the world. We should not allow our public figures to get away with them. Jane Czyzselska.

Every day, almost everywhere around the world gay, lesbian and transgender people face violence, abuse, rape and hate crimes because they are not conforming to social stereotypes about the way they should appear and behave as men or women.

Before getting into the article itself, and the comments and exchanges made on the article thread, I would first like to comment on the fact that these articles seem to encourage the most immature, mendacious and twisted arguments on any media blog site. People claiming to be this, that and the other, people claimimg to be in this, that or the other situation, and typically just in order to add credibility to their cheap, nasty and despicable racism and homophobia. So, here's to it.

Some people may be wondering why I titled the post "LGBT - Political Correctness Gone Mad", this is just to highlight the fact that many of those who criticise political correctness are in fact little better than hypocrits when it comes to political correctness, and that people critical of PC will actually try and use the mechanisms of PC when it suits the racist, sexist and homophobics. So, the only Political Correctness Gone Mad is that which is used to protect the snarling, bared teeth and vicious sexist, homophobic and racist dogs, that they are.

The first comment, a response I made on the blog, is self evident:

Comment Highlighted 1:

Naynaynay wrote:

19 May 09, 3:54pm (57 minutes ago)

MartininEurope,

Talk about attacking a straw man

1. My primary point is that it is perfectly acceptable to be disappointed at having a gay child as it is to be disappointed of having a disabled child

Parents may be disappointed, but why should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to be disillusioned, dissatisfied or let down for either reason?

You seem to be consumed with wish to turn this thread into an issue about disabled people and their parents, and then of conflating that issue with the central issues of the article. Why?

6. The ability or otherwise of disabled people to have sex is quite irrelevant to anything I've said - is it some kind of interest of yours?

Irrelevant? Why should it be any more irrelevant than for anyone else, and considering the remarks you have made regarding same sex partners and their ability, or not, to procreate, and the conflation of disability with homosexuality. I think it is relevant if one is to take into account your assertions.

Comment Highlighted 2:

I followed up comment highlighted #1 with the following, so that I could then link through to this blog entry.

Of course, this little snide give away really calls into question your motivations and the voracity of your previous posts and the claims contained therein:

Naynaynay wrote: ... is it some kind of interest of yours? ...

I'm not an entirely cynical person, but I think that most people could see where this sort of small minded and contemptuously puerile remark is coming from.

Comment Highlighted 3:

Naynaynay wrote: 2. Anticipating that some gay people might be "offended" as being compared to the disabled. I was making the point that there is nothing offensive about being disabled and to suggest otherwise would in itself be "disablist"

So what was the connection between disability and sexuality? And why even draw the comparison. Maybe this is the most offensive thing, conflating disability, sexuality and disappointment to score some cheap debating point.

Comment Highlighted 4:

Text here

Mario Benedetti, 1920 To 2009

Martyn Richard Jones — Mon, 18 May 2009 04:30:00 GMT

Mario Benedetti, 1920 To 2009

The Uruguayan writer Mario Orlando Hamlet Hardy Brenno Benedetti Farugia, better known as Mario Benedetti, is no longer with us. Born in the small town of Paso de los Toros in the department of Tacuarembó, on the 14th of September 1920, he died in his home in the city of Montevideo, this last Sunday (17/5/2009), at the age of 88.

Although relatively little known in the English-speaking world, Benedetti was widely appreciated in the Spanish-speaking world. He was the author of over eighty books of poetry, novels, short stories and essays, as well as screenplays, and was awarded the Premio Reina Sofía de Poesía Iberoamericana (1999), the Premio Iberoamericano José Martí (2001) and the Premio Internacional Menéndez Pelayo (2005).

Following a succession of jobs, Benedetti started his literary life in 1945, when he joined the staff of Marcha, a Uruguayan magazine, and worked alongside Juan Carlos Onetti and Carlos Quijano, both well known writers in their own right in Latin America and Spain. The following year he married Luz López Alegre, his companion and the great love of his life.

Following the Military Coup in Uruguay in 1973, Benedetti was forced into exile, which was to last for 10 years, up until his return to his native country in March of 1983. In that time in exile he lived in various places, including Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba and Spain. Two years later, the popular Catalan singer-songwriter Joan Manuel Serrat recorded the ground-breaking album El Sur También Existe (The south also exists), a collection of Benedetti's poems set to music, in which the poet personally collaborated in its making.

Of his literary output perhaps the work that really stands out are his early titles, such as Montevideanos (1959), which describes the life of civil servants in the Uruguayan capital, with their sense of hierarchy and morals. In his novels La Tregua (1960), which was adapted for theater, radio and television, and made into a film in 1974, Gracias por el Fuego (1963), also adapted for film. In 1971 he published El cumpleaños de Juan Ángel ( 1971), a novel in verse, the critical purpose of which is to reveal characters and state of affairs thatwould expose the mediocrity of bourgeois values in an urban context.

In parallel, Benedetti developed a reputation for his outstanding work as a poet, and collected, expanded and edited an anthology of poetry under the title "Inventory", a collection that consists of representative titles such as " Poemas de la oficina " (1956), " Próximo prójimo " (1965) and " A ras de sueño ", published in 1967. In 1981 he wrote " Geografías ", a book inspired by the motivation behind exile, which brough together stories and poems in one single masterful work of literature.

In 1975, Benedetti's novel La Tregua (The Truce) was later made into a film, which was subsequently nominated for an Oscar in the category of Best Foreign Film. He also later collaborated Daniel Viglietti, a Uruguayan singer-songwriter , in the making of the album A Dos Voces.

Benedetti had always been politically aware, and in January 2006, he was to join other distinguished figures such as Gabriel García Márquez, Eduardo Galeano, Carlos Monsiváis, Jorge Enrique Adoum, Pablo Milanés, Mayra Montero, and Ana Lydia Vega, to demand sovereignty for Puerto Rico .

As for myself, I had the good fortune to meet Benedetti several times when I lived in Spain during the eighties and early nineties. After 1983, Benedetti was to divide his time between Montevideo and Madrid. He was a generous, warm and modest person, who loved to share time with his readers. Many people have contributed his widespread literary success to his discreteness and his straightforward manner and the direct way he had of connecting and communicating with his readers.

From his literature, and from talking with the man himself, it was very easy to understand why he became considered to be one of the most representative of Latin American writers of a generation that was politically committed to the Cuban Revolution and Latin America, and which also lead to his recognition by the Latin American left.

José Saramago, in praising the literary excellence and humanity of Benedetti, and his ability to communicate with many people, also lamented the loss of a friend and a brother: "He always held the ingenuous idea that you can postpone the inevitable, but we cannot, and when the inevitable arrives, as with Mario Benedetti, it's very hard". Saramago also praised the diversity of the works of Benedetti: "He wrote everything, he had an extraordinary capacity for work and, with his genius, his talent and courage, and we can say that it has been very beautiful work".

On hearing the news of Benedetti's death, the Spanish poet José Manuel Caballero Bonald declared that Benedetti had "united poetry and history in a very skilful and intelligent form" and that an outstanding aspect of his work was that of social critique, powerfully underscored by its intelligence.

His last published work was a book of poems, Testigo de Uno Mismo (One's Own Witness), which came out last August. Immediately prior to his death, Benedetti had been working on a new book of poetry whose working title was Biografía Para Encontrarme (Biography to find myself).

To paraphrase the words of Saramago, perhaps the greatest thing about Benedetti, as a writer, is that he was the poet who best represented the genuine voice of his own people. He was a person for whom all language and all of its words were poetic. He strove to tirelessly and persistently search for a meaning, a purpose and a sense of life, in the human condition, on the planet, in the country, in the towns and villages, at home or simply in collective and popular action. In other words, Benedetti was a universal poet, a poet for all humanity, and a truly extraordinary human being.

Mario Benedetti : 14 de septiembre de 1920, Paso de los Toros - 17 de mayo de 2009

Rosa Aguilar

Martyn Richard Jones — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:50:03 GMT

Rosa Aguilar hará un gran impacto positivo en su nuevo papel en la Junta de Andalucía. Ella no ha cambiado sus principios ni sus valores, que acaba de cambiar su puesto de trabajo, y el alcance de su trabajo.

Buena suerte Rosa, y muchas gracias por todo lo que has hecho por nuestra ciudad.

Por la paz, la tolerancia, y la libertad. Un abrazo. Martyn.

Comment as published in Diario de Sevilla