Creationism in schools 1
18th November 2004
In his article on the proposed Conisbrough academy (December), Andrew Brown says that academies select on ability only to a limited extent. He fails, however, to mention the crucial fact that Vardy's and other academies can expel disruptive or defiant pupils much more easily than LEA schools. This confers an advantage to academies that cannot be overestimated.
Michael Davenport
East Linton
Creationism in schools 2
18th November 2004
Andrew Brown downplays the significance of the motivation of those religious organisations which sponsor city academies, but the desire to influence the curriculum is clearly stated in their "vision" for schools. The National Secular Society is certainly right to be wary.
John Quicke
University of Sheffield
Filming the führer
28th November 2004
Contrary to Edward Skidelsky's report (December), most German critics praised the humanisation of Hitler in the film Der Untergang as historically accurate. They compared Bruno Ganz's three-dimensional portrayal of the dictator favourably with the demonic Hitlers of American productions, such as the recent CBS series The Rise of Evil, starring Robert Carlyle. Although German media in search of controversy posed the question, "Is it right to show Hitler's human side?" the typical answer was "yes," and polling institute Forsa found that 69 per cent of Germans agreed.
Some German historians, however, thought the film fell down because its focus on the documentary reconstruction of personality left much on-screen behaviour unexplained. Why did generals who knew better obey a manifestly incompetent decision-maker? Where did the blind loyalty and fanaticism come from that drove teenage soldiers to suicidal resistance and Magda Goebbels to kill her children? The answers lie not in Hitler's private charm and rage, but in wider influences such as the Prussian code of honour, the social-Darwinist zeitgeist, and the multiple crises of inter-war Germany, which made the dictatorship seem to many to be the country's last hope. But Der Untergang offers no interpretation of this, only a Big Brother-esque focus on dysfunctional people trapped in a container.
Marcus Walker
Frankfurt
Antisemitism 1
20th November 2004
Tony Judt (December) is insightful and precise in his elucidation of the antisemitism debate on both sides of the Atlantic. The idea of a firewall between criticism of Israeli governments and antisemitism is of great importance to achieving balanced discourse, both in Europe and America.
However, it is in the middle east and the greater Islamic world where such an idea must be firmly planted. Last year I taught English and history in the Gulf and was appalled by the levels of antisemitism and the lack of any public debate on the issue. Children in my classes came from many countries in the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and India. Some were Palestinian and Lebanese, and had lost family members during the many years of fighting. However, most of the children were not closely linked to the conflict, nor were they all Muslim. But many children had drawn swastikas on their books and had pictures and videos of Hitler on their phones. Children in class told me, "Sir, Hitler was cool: he killed the Jews!" and others wrote essays on why Hitler was their hero.
Where I taught, the government excluded politics and the relevant areas of contemporary history from the syllabus. I was expected to teach the rise of Nazi Germany and the second world war without any reference to the Holocaust. I objected to this, and agreed with a few other teachers to teach the Holocaust in class and to discuss the issue of Israel and Palestine.
The reaction of the pupils was largely positive. Most had little or no knowledge of the Holocaust and were appalled by what they read. Many were also surprised to see real evidence of an event that had been previously described to them as a Zionist fabrication. A greater understanding of Hitler and his policies helped to expose the unacceptability of his antisemitism and hence their own. They learnt that one could be an ardent supporter of Palestinian independence and a strong critic of Israeli government policy without resorting to antisemitism.
Randolph Skomer Quinault
London N19
Antisemitism 2
29th November 2004
Seeking to castigate Israel, Tony Judt complains that "Israel and its lobbyists have an excessive and disastrous influence" on US foreign policy. Moreover, "a number of very senior Bush appointees spent the 1990s advising politicians of the Israeli far right." Whose fault is that? Rather than making Israel a scapegoat for America's shortcomings, Judt and other immigrants must learn to criticise US policies and actions as they would those of any other state.
Judt then voices sympathy for unnamed Romanians and Hungarians inclined to claim that, "it is Jews who set the international agenda for remorse, retribution and reparations," thereby diverting attention from "the crimes of communism." The implication that German reparations were launched because of Jewish pressure is ludicrous and a gross slur on the Federal Republic. As for the crimes of communism, who exactly do Judt and his central European friends think should pay reparations to whom? In no way are these "reasonable political preoccupations."
Finally, Judt says that Israeli politicians encourage antisemitism by "purporting to speak for Jews everywhere," and that it behoves Jews to dissociate themselves by condemning Israel. If he is serious about wanting to defend a firewall between criticism of Israel and antisemitism, he might begin by dissociating himself from this line of argument.
Peter Oppenheimer
Oxford
God comes in two kinds
18th November 2004
The debate on atheism (Letters, December) overlooks crucial distinctions. The question "Do you believe in God?" needs amplification, for gods are of two kinds. The first kind creates the cloud of gas from which the universe will develop and the rules which shape that development; he then leaves the universe to get on with it. No one plants bombs for this god.
The other kind of god takes a close interest in every human being. He demands correct belief, praise and obedience; he is particularly concerned with who goes to bed with whom. He sends some people to heaven and others to hell. I am an agnostic as to god one but an atheist as to god two.
Maurice Cooke
Bangor
Moma and modernism
18th November 2004
Mark Irving's article (November) aims to be a serious analysis of the renovated Museum of Modern Art, but fails to grasp two essential components of the project: the architectural design and the reinstallation of the collection. By comparing the black granite used on the façade of the building with the Vietnam veterans' memorial in Washington DC, Irving implies that the museum has become a tomb, encased in its own stasis. Nothing could be further from the reality of the actual building, which integrates panels of black granite with monumental glass windows that overlook the street, allowing passers-by to see into the heart of the institution and its collections. This transparency is echoed in the interior where a series of windows and bridges permit visitors to see from one area of the museum to another, so that the entire building reads as a series of interconnected parts, a microcosm of the city, as Taniguchi intended.
Irving misinterpreted my remarks about the reinstallation of the collection. When I mentioned that Andy Warhol was a key figure of the 1960s and 1970s and that many younger artists drew inspiration from his work, finding Jackson Pollock and his generation less relevant, I in no way meant that the museum shares that assessment. Indeed, Pollock is considered so pivotal a figure in the history of modern art that his work is given an entire gallery.
Similarly, Irving made misleading use of my comments about the positioning of Paul Signac's portrait of Felix Feneon in the painting and sculpture galleries. At the time of Irving's visit, the installation was in process and not able to be viewed. What I found interesting about John Elderfield's decision to position Signac's portrait facing the visitor in the first gallery, as opposed to Cézanne's Bather, as in previous installations, was the presentation of an inherently contemporary subject - a portrait of a critic and collector. The proximity of Signac and Cézanne demonstrate a finely calibrated and thoughtful juxtaposition that makes clear the many sources of modern art. To suggest that Moma has "recast modern art as seen from our times, with showmanship and celebrity as the dominant thread," may indicate Irving's own musings about modern art but in no way reflects the museum's position or the installation of the collection. Had Irving waited to view the installation, he would have understood the full context and avoided such presumptive speculation.
Glenn D Lowry
Director, Moma
EU constitution
26th November 2004
Neil O'Brien, the campaign director of Vote No, claims (Letters, December) that the European constitutional treaty marks "a radical transfer of power" to the EU. He argues that "making the charter of fundamental rights legally binding will have a major impact on our legal system and our economy. The moves towards majority voting in foreign policy are dramatic. The constitution's proposals in home affairs, which would mean the harmonisation of both legal procedures and sentencing, would also have big implications."
This is nonsense. The treaty makes clear that the EU only has those powers that member states choose to grant it. It explicitly states that the charter does not confer any new powers on the EU. Foreign policy decisions will still be made by unanimity; majority voting will only apply to decisions about implementing measures, such as who to appoint as a special EU representative. Nor does the treaty imply the harmonisation of legal procedures and sentencing.
O'Brien is also wrong to claim that in areas where powers are "shared" between the EU and member states, "member states can only act if the EU chooses not to." In fact, in such areas, the EU only acts where member states agree it should. Where the states decide that the EU should implement a common policy, they cannot then pass contrary national laws.
O'Brien is disingenuous in attacking the treaty for failing to tackle the challenges of competition from Asia, an ageing workforce and pension provision. The purpose of the constitutional treaty is to set out the basic rules of the European club - who does what and how - not to fill in the detail of specific policies. Moreover, as O'Brien would surely agree, such economic policy decisions are largely matters for national governments, not the EU.
Vote No's final canard is to pose as pro-Europeans who oppose the treaty in order to give Europe "a fresh start." Yet a quick glance at Vote No's key supporters reveals such fervent pro-Europeans as Rodney Leach, who has argued that Britain should leave the EU and was a board member of Bill Cash's European Foundation.
If the other 24 EU countries all vote "yes," they are not going to radically change course because Britain wants to go off in a different direction. If no campaigners get their way, Britain would have to negotiate some form of second-class membership of the EU, or leave altogether.
Philippe Legrain
Britain in Europe
18th November 2004
In his article on the proposed Conisbrough academy (December), Andrew Brown says that academies select on ability only to a limited extent. He fails, however, to mention the crucial fact that Vardy's and other academies can expel disruptive or defiant pupils much more easily than LEA schools. This confers an advantage to academies that cannot be overestimated.
Michael Davenport
East Linton
Creationism in schools 2
18th November 2004
Andrew Brown downplays the significance of the motivation of those religious organisations which sponsor city academies, but the desire to influence the curriculum is clearly stated in their "vision" for schools. The National Secular Society is certainly right to be wary.
John Quicke
University of Sheffield
Filming the führer
28th November 2004
Contrary to Edward Skidelsky's report (December), most German critics praised the humanisation of Hitler in the film Der Untergang as historically accurate. They compared Bruno Ganz's three-dimensional portrayal of the dictator favourably with the demonic Hitlers of American productions, such as the recent CBS series The Rise of Evil, starring Robert Carlyle. Although German media in search of controversy posed the question, "Is it right to show Hitler's human side?" the typical answer was "yes," and polling institute Forsa found that 69 per cent of Germans agreed.
Some German historians, however, thought the film fell down because its focus on the documentary reconstruction of personality left much on-screen behaviour unexplained. Why did generals who knew better obey a manifestly incompetent decision-maker? Where did the blind loyalty and fanaticism come from that drove teenage soldiers to suicidal resistance and Magda Goebbels to kill her children? The answers lie not in Hitler's private charm and rage, but in wider influences such as the Prussian code of honour, the social-Darwinist zeitgeist, and the multiple crises of inter-war Germany, which made the dictatorship seem to many to be the country's last hope. But Der Untergang offers no interpretation of this, only a Big Brother-esque focus on dysfunctional people trapped in a container.
Marcus Walker
Frankfurt
Antisemitism 1
20th November 2004
Tony Judt (December) is insightful and precise in his elucidation of the antisemitism debate on both sides of the Atlantic. The idea of a firewall between criticism of Israeli governments and antisemitism is of great importance to achieving balanced discourse, both in Europe and America.
However, it is in the middle east and the greater Islamic world where such an idea must be firmly planted. Last year I taught English and history in the Gulf and was appalled by the levels of antisemitism and the lack of any public debate on the issue. Children in my classes came from many countries in the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and India. Some were Palestinian and Lebanese, and had lost family members during the many years of fighting. However, most of the children were not closely linked to the conflict, nor were they all Muslim. But many children had drawn swastikas on their books and had pictures and videos of Hitler on their phones. Children in class told me, "Sir, Hitler was cool: he killed the Jews!" and others wrote essays on why Hitler was their hero.
Where I taught, the government excluded politics and the relevant areas of contemporary history from the syllabus. I was expected to teach the rise of Nazi Germany and the second world war without any reference to the Holocaust. I objected to this, and agreed with a few other teachers to teach the Holocaust in class and to discuss the issue of Israel and Palestine.
The reaction of the pupils was largely positive. Most had little or no knowledge of the Holocaust and were appalled by what they read. Many were also surprised to see real evidence of an event that had been previously described to them as a Zionist fabrication. A greater understanding of Hitler and his policies helped to expose the unacceptability of his antisemitism and hence their own. They learnt that one could be an ardent supporter of Palestinian independence and a strong critic of Israeli government policy without resorting to antisemitism.
Randolph Skomer Quinault
London N19
Antisemitism 2
29th November 2004
Seeking to castigate Israel, Tony Judt complains that "Israel and its lobbyists have an excessive and disastrous influence" on US foreign policy. Moreover, "a number of very senior Bush appointees spent the 1990s advising politicians of the Israeli far right." Whose fault is that? Rather than making Israel a scapegoat for America's shortcomings, Judt and other immigrants must learn to criticise US policies and actions as they would those of any other state.
Judt then voices sympathy for unnamed Romanians and Hungarians inclined to claim that, "it is Jews who set the international agenda for remorse, retribution and reparations," thereby diverting attention from "the crimes of communism." The implication that German reparations were launched because of Jewish pressure is ludicrous and a gross slur on the Federal Republic. As for the crimes of communism, who exactly do Judt and his central European friends think should pay reparations to whom? In no way are these "reasonable political preoccupations."
Finally, Judt says that Israeli politicians encourage antisemitism by "purporting to speak for Jews everywhere," and that it behoves Jews to dissociate themselves by condemning Israel. If he is serious about wanting to defend a firewall between criticism of Israel and antisemitism, he might begin by dissociating himself from this line of argument.
Peter Oppenheimer
Oxford
God comes in two kinds
18th November 2004
The debate on atheism (Letters, December) overlooks crucial distinctions. The question "Do you believe in God?" needs amplification, for gods are of two kinds. The first kind creates the cloud of gas from which the universe will develop and the rules which shape that development; he then leaves the universe to get on with it. No one plants bombs for this god.
The other kind of god takes a close interest in every human being. He demands correct belief, praise and obedience; he is particularly concerned with who goes to bed with whom. He sends some people to heaven and others to hell. I am an agnostic as to god one but an atheist as to god two.
Maurice Cooke
Bangor
Moma and modernism
18th November 2004
Mark Irving's article (November) aims to be a serious analysis of the renovated Museum of Modern Art, but fails to grasp two essential components of the project: the architectural design and the reinstallation of the collection. By comparing the black granite used on the façade of the building with the Vietnam veterans' memorial in Washington DC, Irving implies that the museum has become a tomb, encased in its own stasis. Nothing could be further from the reality of the actual building, which integrates panels of black granite with monumental glass windows that overlook the street, allowing passers-by to see into the heart of the institution and its collections. This transparency is echoed in the interior where a series of windows and bridges permit visitors to see from one area of the museum to another, so that the entire building reads as a series of interconnected parts, a microcosm of the city, as Taniguchi intended.
Irving misinterpreted my remarks about the reinstallation of the collection. When I mentioned that Andy Warhol was a key figure of the 1960s and 1970s and that many younger artists drew inspiration from his work, finding Jackson Pollock and his generation less relevant, I in no way meant that the museum shares that assessment. Indeed, Pollock is considered so pivotal a figure in the history of modern art that his work is given an entire gallery.
Similarly, Irving made misleading use of my comments about the positioning of Paul Signac's portrait of Felix Feneon in the painting and sculpture galleries. At the time of Irving's visit, the installation was in process and not able to be viewed. What I found interesting about John Elderfield's decision to position Signac's portrait facing the visitor in the first gallery, as opposed to Cézanne's Bather, as in previous installations, was the presentation of an inherently contemporary subject - a portrait of a critic and collector. The proximity of Signac and Cézanne demonstrate a finely calibrated and thoughtful juxtaposition that makes clear the many sources of modern art. To suggest that Moma has "recast modern art as seen from our times, with showmanship and celebrity as the dominant thread," may indicate Irving's own musings about modern art but in no way reflects the museum's position or the installation of the collection. Had Irving waited to view the installation, he would have understood the full context and avoided such presumptive speculation.
Glenn D Lowry
Director, Moma
EU constitution
26th November 2004
Neil O'Brien, the campaign director of Vote No, claims (Letters, December) that the European constitutional treaty marks "a radical transfer of power" to the EU. He argues that "making the charter of fundamental rights legally binding will have a major impact on our legal system and our economy. The moves towards majority voting in foreign policy are dramatic. The constitution's proposals in home affairs, which would mean the harmonisation of both legal procedures and sentencing, would also have big implications."
This is nonsense. The treaty makes clear that the EU only has those powers that member states choose to grant it. It explicitly states that the charter does not confer any new powers on the EU. Foreign policy decisions will still be made by unanimity; majority voting will only apply to decisions about implementing measures, such as who to appoint as a special EU representative. Nor does the treaty imply the harmonisation of legal procedures and sentencing.
O'Brien is also wrong to claim that in areas where powers are "shared" between the EU and member states, "member states can only act if the EU chooses not to." In fact, in such areas, the EU only acts where member states agree it should. Where the states decide that the EU should implement a common policy, they cannot then pass contrary national laws.
O'Brien is disingenuous in attacking the treaty for failing to tackle the challenges of competition from Asia, an ageing workforce and pension provision. The purpose of the constitutional treaty is to set out the basic rules of the European club - who does what and how - not to fill in the detail of specific policies. Moreover, as O'Brien would surely agree, such economic policy decisions are largely matters for national governments, not the EU.
Vote No's final canard is to pose as pro-Europeans who oppose the treaty in order to give Europe "a fresh start." Yet a quick glance at Vote No's key supporters reveals such fervent pro-Europeans as Rodney Leach, who has argued that Britain should leave the EU and was a board member of Bill Cash's European Foundation.
If the other 24 EU countries all vote "yes," they are not going to radically change course because Britain wants to go off in a different direction. If no campaigners get their way, Britain would have to negotiate some form of second-class membership of the EU, or leave altogether.
Philippe Legrain
Britain in Europe
