Balkanization, etc.
Отиди на страница:
Преди време Симпли пусна кичови снимки от Вила Аква на стария ресторантьор Августин Пейчинов (Augustin von Paege) във Варна (на Журналист). Всъщност е хотел, Вола Аква Бийч Резорт, и се предлага на сайта на Златните. Пейчинов продаде ресторанта Box Tree (Чимшир) на 49-та ул. и 2 аве. в Ню Йорк преди няколко години и живее в Париж. Но е отворил нов Box Tree във Вила Аква и е донесъл там същата постмодерна, но намирисваща на мухъл, безспорно еклектична, но общо взето Ар Нуво (Сецесион по виенски и нашенски) фантасмагорична стилистика (ходил съм в стария Бокс трий веднъж през 1995). Балканизирана е, с карпатска камбанария, руска луковица кубе, трвненски плочести покриви, гръцко-египетски храм с масонска символика. Всеки детайл е грижливо researched, по-точно recherche. Турил един Ролс-Ройс вътре и един мотор Харли (май). Пейчинов е очарователен крехък дядко, беше добър приятел с проф. Чавдар Драгойчев. Въпреки недоброто качество на снимките и многото грешки в текста (и печатни, и фактически - че Волга се вливала в Черно море) сайта си струва да се разгледа внимателно. Не е мутробарок, много по-интересно. Три малки детайла сецесион, могат да влязат във всеки фотоалбум:   А туй пък са нови 180 апартамента за продан на Златните - Вили Лукс (Златни пясъци АД), над яхтеното пристанище, цените - е, горе-долу поносими за западняка  Редактирано от - Чичо Фичо на 30/9/2005 г/ 06:48:25 |
| Нищо не разбираш Фичо , но това не е мой проблем ! Ти лично не познаваш България , а това ми стига за да знам какъв си ! |
| Това ми заприлича страшно на Замъка Хърст, може би вдъхновението е оттам? Американците му казват "еклектика", но е просто скъп кич. Толкова е несмилаемо като гледка, че като излезеш се питаш "Аз наистина ли го видях това?!" |
| Специално за Симпли и Карата: На 2-ри от 10 часа (за часа не съм сигурен) ще се осветят реставрираните икони на св.Стефан от вселенския патриарх. Ще има 3 автобуса хора от България. А след 12:30 в гръцкото гробище в Шишли ще се направи панахида над възстановената гробница на Кръстевич. Ако имате възможност и желание - отидете. |
Ели, Августин фон Paege се приемаше в Ню Йорк като леко плесенясал, леко перверзен, но доста изискан (обеднял) европейски аристократ, като Набоковия Хумбърт Хумбърт, като елзасеца Жан Жорж Фонгерихтен, който отваря ресторант след ресторант в Манхатън и пише готварски книги като унесен. Подозирам, че няма да ми е приятна такава обстановка (за малко), но не мога да съм сигурен преди да я видя. Иначе ако някога си търся къща на село, сигурно ще е като къщите на Мийс   |
*****
Редактирано от - bot на 30/9/2005 г/ 16:04:22 |
| Разгледах сайта с голямо любопитство :-) Всеки предмет е само по себе си интересен и няма вид на made in Taiwan/China, а чаплата е наистина красива и прилича на нещата на Тифани в Метрополитън мюзеум, но не знам точно как да го кажа. Говоря за онези непредсказуеми резултати от комбинацията на уж правилно подбрани елементи. Нещо като двама души носят една и съща дреха, но им стои по толкова различен начин, че се чудиш дали това наистина е същата дреха, или пък как на тези толкова различни хора им е хрумнал този еднакъв избор :-) Но е винаги интригуващо. Интересно, в Б-я кои ли ще са ценителите на такава обстановка? |
| Според мене ценители може се намерят, например българските студенти по дизайн и история на изкуството, каквато специалност (заедно с архитектура и художествена фотография) имало и във Варненския свободен университет, на няколко минути пеша оттам. Цената за двойна стая извън сезона е 55 евро, не е малко, но може да ги спонсорират европейците за семинари за сецесиона. Вила Гяуров и тя е наблизо, там пък може да правят малки музикални фестивали, ето Темплара се оплаква, че неговия конкурс за млади оперни певци в Пловдив нямал хубава зала. * Пейчинов се вижда за каква клиентела си е мислил - видя ли там за ордена на Малта, клуб Ролс-Ройс и клуб Порше (а пък в Ню Йорк Ферари е най-голяма мода, сега видях рали с 70-75 нови Ферарита с местни номера строени на Пето авеню в Бруклин). На едно място в сайта казва, че имало стаи за "слуги и шофьори". Тайни "пленуми" на западни корпорации. Ако идват Сорос, Ширак, Путин или принц Чарлс. |
  Орхан Памук
В близката книжарница Б&Н имат три преведени негови романа, "Името ми е червено"* (Benim Adim Kirmizi, историческа, за турски худ. миниатюристи и влиянието на ит. ренесанс), "Бялата крепост" (Beyaz Kale, историческа, за италианец в Турция) и "Сняг" (Kar, политическа, съвременна, за ислямизма в Турция), току-що си купих последния. _______ *Може би по-добре - "Казвам се Кърмъзъ" или "Червенко"? Редактирано от - Чичо Фичо на 03/12/2005 г/ 01:32:41 |
| Ню Йоркър излезе днес с уводна статия от Орхан Памук, когото ще съдят тая седмица за безродничество (казал в интервю пред западен вестник, че в Турция били убити един милион арменци и 30 хил. кюрди): COMMENT ON TRIAL by Orhan Pamuk Issue of 2005-12-19 Posted 2005-12-12 In Istanbul this Friday—in Sisli, the district where I have spent my whole life, in the courthouse directly opposite the three-story house where my grandmother lived alone for forty years—I will stand before a judge. My crime is to have “publicly denigrated Turkish identity.” The prosecutor will ask that I be imprisoned for three years. I should perhaps find it worrying that the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was tried in the same court for the same offense, under Article 301 of the same statute, and was found guilty, but I remain optimistic. For, like my lawyer, I believe that the case against me is thin; I do not think I will end up in jail. This makes it somewhat embarrassing to see my trial overdramatized. I am only too aware that most of the Istanbul friends from whom I have sought advice have at some point undergone much harsher interrogation and lost many years to court cases and prison sentences just because of a book, just because of something they had written. Living as I do in a country that honors its pashas, saints, and policemen at every opportunity but refuses to honor its writers until they have spent years in courts and in prisons, I cannot say I was surprised to be put on trial. I understand why friends smile and say that I am at last “a real Turkish writer.” But when I uttered the words that landed me in trouble I was not seeking that kind of honor. Last February, in an interview published in a Swiss newspaper, I said that “a million Armenians and thirty thousand Kurds had been killed in Turkey”; I went on to complain that it was taboo to discuss these matters in my country. Among the world’s serious historians, it is common knowledge that a large number of Ottoman Armenians were deported, allegedly for siding against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, and many of them were slaughtered along the way. Turkey’s spokesmen, most of whom are diplomats, continue to maintain that the death toll was much lower, that the slaughter does not count as a genocide because it was not systematic, and that in the course of the war Armenians killed many Muslims, too. This past September, however, despite opposition from the state, three highly respected Istanbul universities joined forces to hold an academic conference of scholars open to views not tolerated by the official Turkish line. Since then, for the first time in ninety years, there has been public discussion of the subject—this despite the spectre of Article 301. If the state is prepared to go to such lengths to keep the Turkish people from knowing what happened to the Ottoman Armenians, that qualifies as a taboo. And my words caused a furor worthy of a taboo: various newspapers launched hate campaigns against me, with some right-wing (but not necessarily Islamist) columnists going as far as to say that I should be “silenced” for good; groups of nationalist extremists organized meetings and demonstrations to protest my treachery; there were public burnings of my books. Like Ka, the hero of my novel “Snow,” I discovered how it felt to have to leave one’s beloved city for a time on account of one’s political views. Because I did not want to add to the controversy, and did not want even to hear about it, I at first kept quiet, drenched in a strange sort of shame, hiding from the public, and even from my own words. Then a provincial governor ordered a burning of my books, and, following my return to Istanbul, the ?i?li public prosecutor opened the case against me, and I found myself the object of international concern. My detractors were not motivated just by personal animosity, nor were they expressing hostility to me alone; I already knew that my case was a matter worthy of discussion in both Turkey and the outside world. This was partly because I believed that what stained a country’s “honor” was not the discussion of the black spots in its history but the impossibility of any discussion at all. But it was also because I believed that in today’s Turkey the prohibition against discussing the Ottoman Armenians was a prohibition against freedom of expression, and that the two matters were inextricably linked. Comforted as I was by the interest in my predicament and by the generous gestures of support, there were also times when I felt uneasy about finding myself caught between my country and the rest of the world. The hardest thing was to explain why a country officially committed to entry in the European Union would wish to imprison an author whose books were well known in Europe, and why it felt compelled to play out this drama (as Conrad might have said) “under Western eyes.” This paradox cannot be explained away as simple ignorance, jealousy, or intolerance, and it is not the only paradox. What am I to make of a country that insists that the Turks, unlike their Western neighbors, are a compassionate people, incapable of genocide, while nationalist political groups are pelting me with death threats? What is the logic behind a state that complains that its enemies spread false reports about the Ottoman legacy all over the globe while it prosecutes and imprisons one writer after another, thus propagating the image of the Terrible Turk worldwide? When I think of the professor whom the state asked to give his ideas on Turkey’s minorities, and who, having produced a report that failed to please, was prosecuted, or the news that between the time I began this essay and embarked on the sentence you are now reading five more writers and journalists were charged under Article 301, I imagine that Flaubert and Nerval, the two godfathers of Orientalism, would call these incidents bizarreries, and rightly so. That said, the drama we see unfolding is not, I think, a grotesque and inscrutable drama peculiar to Turkey; rather, it is an expression of a new global phenomenon that we are only just coming to acknowledge and that we must now begin, however slowly, to address. In recent years, we have witnessed the astounding economic rise of India and China, and in both these countries we have also seen the rapid expansion of the middle class, though I do not think we shall truly understand the people who have been part of this transformation until we have seen their private lives reflected in novels. Whatever you call these new é lites—the non-Western bourgeoisie or the enriched bureaucracy—they, like the Westernizing é lites in my own country, feel compelled to follow two separate and seemingly incompatible lines of action in order to legitimatize their newly acquired wealth and power. First, they must justify the rapid rise in their fortunes by assuming the idiom and the attitudes of the West; having created a demand for such knowledge, they then take it upon themselves to tutor their countrymen. When the people berate them for ignoring tradition, they respond by brandishing a virulent and intolerant nationalism. The disputes that a Flaubert-like outside observer might call bizarreries may simply be the clashes between these political and economic programs and the cultural aspirations they engender. On the one hand, there is the rush to join the global economy; on the other, the angry nationalism that sees true democracy and freedom of thought as Western inventions. V. S. Naipaul was one of the first writers to describe the private lives of the ruthless, murderous non-Western ruling é lites of the post-colonial era. Last May, in Korea, when I met the great Japanese writer Kenzaburo Oe, I heard that he, too, had been attacked by nationalist extremists after stating that the ugly crimes committed by his country’s armies during the invasions of Korea and China should be openly discussed in Tokyo. The intolerance shown by the Russian state toward the Chechens and other minorities and civil-rights groups, the attacks on freedom of expression by Hindu nationalists in India, and China’s discreet ethnic cleansing of the Uighurs—all are nourished by the same contradictions. As tomorrow’s novelists prepare to narrate the private lives of the new é lites, they are no doubt expecting the West to criticize the limits that their states place on freedom of expression. But these days the lies about the war in Iraq and the reports of secret C.I.A. prisons have so damaged the West’s credibility in Turkey and in other nations that it is more and more difficult for people like me to make the case for true Western democracy in my part of the world. (Translated, from the Turkish, by Maureen Freely.) Редактирано от - Чичо Фичо на 13/12/2005 г/ 04:45:48 |
| The New York Times December 16, 2005 Op-Ed Contributor Secular Democracy Goes on Trial By PANKAJ MISHRA Simla, India WHEN in 1989 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran sentenced Salman Rushdie to death, saying he had blasphemed the Prophet Muhammad in his novel "The Satanic Verses," it was seen even in the Islamic world as an act of political opportunism, intended to boost Iran over its rival Saudi Arabia as the beacon of global Islam. It garnered little support among the clergy outside Iran, or among Muslims in general; and Iran itself seemed to acknowledge public revulsion in 1998 when it stated it would no longer carry out the death sentence. The ayatollah's fatwa however created what, in retrospect, seems an extraordinary ideological consensus among the largely secularized Western intelligentsia. Writing in Mr. Rushdie's defense, novelists, poets, newspaper editors and columnists painted themselves as defenders of the European Enlightenment battling the dark atavism of religion. This view of an unreformed Islam prone to anti-Western extremism re-emerged, of course, after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Many conservative intellectuals in the United States and Britain declared their resolve to fight to the bitter end against "Islamo-fascism"; and even the more liberal intellectuals demanded an immediate Islamic Reformation. But these familiar generalities - Enlightenment versus Religion, Democracy versus Fascism - have always been facile, and are now being exploded by the ordeal of another prominent writer of Muslim ancestry, Orhan Pamuk, who goes on trial in Turkey today. Mr. Pamuk is accused of a committing a crime by mentioning, in an interview with a Swiss newspaper, that "a million Armenians and 30, 000 Kurds" were killed in Turkey after World War I. The Armenian massacres are a widely documented fact. But it is an officially taboo subject in Turkey; and the government, nationalist political groups and press immediately joined in attacking Mr. Pamuk. Many Western politicians and intellectuals reacted late, or confusedly, to this assault on a celebrated writer. This may be because the West often upholds Turkey as an example of a Muslim society embracing secular democracy. Turkey's apparently ongoing enlightenment underpins its claim to be considered part of Europe. So what explains this latest Turkish assault on free speech? It won't do to blame religious extremists. Most of Mr. Pamuk's detractors belong to the political right wing, which in Turkey means that they are determined secularists. The prosecutor who instigated the legal proceedings belongs to a longstanding secular Turkish state that has cracked down on Muslim women wearing headscarves more harshly than has France. What does seem apparent is that, like all nation-states, Turkey has its own sacred nationalist myths and will protect them as fiercely as, if not more than, any society claming the sanction of religion. This state-sponsored nationalism attracts a wide range of Turks, including many members of the educated elite. And Turkey's middle-class nationalism, as Mr. Pamuk has pointed out, is hardly exceptional. Other nations wearing some of the emblems of Western modernity - secularism, democracy, a free-market economy - hardly offer any guarantees of free speech. Consider, for example, China, India and Russia, three multiethnic and officially secular nation-states that are experimenting with variations on the free-market economy. In all these countries, a growing middle class turned a blind eye to, or even actively supported, the suppression of ethnic minorities in the name of national unity. In democratic India, up to 70, 000 people have died in Kashmir in a violent insurgency that the Indian news media have yet to honestly reckon with. In Russian Chechnya, civilians and journalists have been as much victims as Islamic rebels. And such is the power of Chinese nationalism that even most dissident intellectuals in the West feel that Tibet and Xinjiang are part of their motherland. The destructive potential of modern nationalism should not surprise us. Traditional religion hardly played a role in the unprecedented violence of the 20th century, which was largely caused by secular ideologies - Nazism and Communism. Secular nationalism has been known to impose intellectual conformity and suppress dissent even in advanced democratic societies. In America, it was at least partly the fear of being perceived as unpatriotic that held back the freest news media in the world from rigorously questioning the official justification for and conduct of the war in Iraq. As for traditional religion, outside Saudi Arabia and Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban it has rarely enjoyed the kind of overwhelming state power that modern nationalism has known. Then why reflexively blame religion for the growth of intolerance and violence? Perhaps, because it is easy - and useful. Certainly, all the talk of Enlightenment, Reformation, a clash of civilizations and the like does help build up ideological smokescreens, obscuring the more complex political and economic battles of the world. By setting up abstract, simplistic oppositions, the Rushdie affair helped metaphysics cloud the realm of geopolitics. The Pamuk affair, on the other hand, promises to help create intellectual clarity. But this will not only require renouncing the urge to populate the world with religious fanatics, dangerous "others." It will also require a willingness, as Mr. Pamuk has so bravely expressed, to question the myths of our own complacently modern and secular societies. Pankaj Mishra is the author, most recently, of "An End to Suffering: The Buddha in the World." Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company |
| EU Observer.com Trial of Turkish novelist adjourned 16.12.2005 - 17:58 CET | By Teresa Kü chler The trial of world-renowned Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk, charged with "denigrating Turkishness", was adjourned only minutes after the author's first court appearance. Istanbul judge Metin Aydin said in the early morning on Friday (16 December) that the prosecution could not proceed until it had been approved by the ministry of justice. Mr Pamuk is on trial for denigrating Turkishness, after an interview in Swiss newspaper Tages Anzeiger in February, in which the author said "30, 000 Kurds and one million Ottoman Armenians were killed in Turkey and no-one dares talk about it." The Istanbul court wishes to prosecute Mr Pamuk under an old version of the Turkish penal code, according to which permission from the justice minister is needed. The court argues that Mr Pamuk should not be tried under a new penal code, because his infamous remark was made before the new code came into force in June. On Friday morning, no reaction had come from the justice ministry in Ankara, and the trial was therefore postponed until 7 February. Mr Pamuk's defence lawyers in Istanbul pleaded in vain for a total acquittal of the best-selling Turkish author who may be sentenced for up to three years in prison if found guilty. Courtroom of emotions Friday's hearing was closely watched by world-wide human rights activists, journalists, politicians, diplomats and intellectuals - as well as large groups of Mr Pamuk's slanderers. A group of MEPs who had travelled to Istanbul to observe the trial, said the hearing inside the courthouse was chaotic and "a big mess". With more than a hundred people crammed into the courtroom, designed for around 20 people, events became very aggressive, the group's spokesperson said. Ultra right-wing nationalists outside the courtroom, chanted "traitor" throughout the one-hour long session and, on leaving the court, Mr Pamuk was pelted with eggs and insults. British MEP Geoffrey Van Orden, a member of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee participating in the parliament's expedition to Istanbul, said that it was not only Mr Pamuk on trial, but also Turkey for bringing the case up. "If Pamuk had not been prosecuted, hardly anyone would have noticed his remarks", he said. Brussels not impressed with Pamuk case A spokesperson for enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn said that the commissioner had taken notice of the postponement, but that this "did not change the substance of the matter". "The commission regrets that Turkey did not seize the opportunity to acquit Pamuk in the name freedom of expression of all Turkish citizens", she said. In the wake of the trial, Mr Rehn raised a warning finger towards Ankara, saying that the accession demands for Turkey are non-negotiable, and that Turkey as an EU candidate state must be truly committed to the basic democratic principle of free speech. The parliamentarian group in Istanbul said that the ministry of justice's refusal to react to the prosecutor's request for a trial permission - or denial- was making matters worse for the government in Ankara. Independent judges have questioned the Turkish government's commitment to freedom of speech as the EU requires from its members, arguing that if it was really committed to free speech then it would not have adopted a law about "Turkishness" in the first place. MEPs in Istanbul noted that Mr Pamuk's case is only one out of many similar ones endangering EU membership. According to an Amnesty report, there are over 60 pending cases of journalists, writers and other intellectuals in Turkey who are facing charges similar to those directed at Mr Pamuk. |
| Памук е пред съда за "очерняне на турщината", 'Tü rklü ğ e hakaret', нещо като очерняне на българщината. |
| Турщината (Turkluk - Тюрклюк) си има и сайт. |
| Мисля, че темата си струва коментарите. Наистина турския национализъм не е единствен по рода си с митовете си. Не трябва да ходим чак до Индия и Китай. Същия е и новогръцкия, и сръбския, и румънския, а и българския "роднически" национализъм. Разликата е, че в Турция срещу кемализма стои ислямизма, и традиционното турско левичарство все повече се сближава с ислямизма срещу прозападния, прокапиталистически кемализъм. И кюрдския национализъм, също традиционно ляв, все повече се сближава с ислямизма, кюрдски и турски. * Романа на Памук "Сняг" (2001) показва това с голяма сила. И Памук, и героят му от "Сняг", поетът Ка, съчувстват (или поне разбират) бедните хора от Анадола, турци и кюрди, чието отчаяние от бедността се излива в ислямизъм. Памук, който продава книгите си в астрономически тиражи в Турция, обаче е чужд за ислямистите, като човек със западно образование и "атеист", чужд е и за кемалистите като "безродник", очернител на тюрклюка. Памук и Ка са озападнени декаденстстващи богаташи от буржоазния Нишанташ (който прилича на Пето авеню и Виа Венето повече, отколкото на Витошка и Лозенец) със скъпи палта от Кауфхоф. * В "Сняг" кемалистите устройват фарсов военен преврат, подсторен от гостуващата театрална трупа на известния артист, голям кемалист и нереализиран Дуче - Сунай Заим, в който преврат загиват наистина доста случайни хора. Отменят изборите, в които се очаква да победят ислямистите, отмъщават за убийството на директора на пед. училище, гонил по нареждане на Анкара момите с фереджета в клас, като децимират учениците в ислямското училище. * "Сняг" е пълен и с носталгия по липсващите в Карс арменци, чиито къщи още радват окото, макар разнебитени. Памук съобщава, че в Карс имало и "музей на арменското клане", само че за разлика от мнението на останалия свят, тука версията е, че арменците били клали турците. В романа има и романтични препратки към руската окупация на Карс, с хубавите "балтийски" къщи, в които сега се помещават турските държавни учреждения, та до хубавите рускини, които сега (най-вече грузинки и украинки) попълват редовете на "най-стария занаят" - в книгата има една много красива грузинка, чийто мъж я води да проституира, макар че е туберкулозна, и са били вече екстрадирани много пъти, но турския полицейски бос смята котелното, в което грузинците живеят нелегално, освен за най-топлото място в Карс и за рай на земята. * Надявам се в нашия вестник писаха за новото изказване на иранския вожд, ислямиста, ляв популист, човек от народа и бивш кмет на Техеран Ахмадинеджад, че Холокоста бил измислица на запада, за да оправдае европейския колониален проект Израел. Ислямистите в Турция гледат към Иран със надежда и любов. |
| "Не сме глупави, само сме бедни!" - казва на европейците един от ислямистките младежи от Карс в "Сняг". Памук иска да създаде атмосфера от Достоевски и Тургенев, дето ислямистите донякъде да приличат и на Альоша Карамазов, секуларистите - и на младия Верховенски. * Но Саудитска Арабия и ОАЕ показват, че работата не е само в материалната бедност. Все пак в Карс вълненията и самоубийствата са само за една забрадка, в залива с модерните небостъргачи покриват цялото тяло. |
| Памук се появи и в Стандарт. "...всеки национализъм и фундаментализъм се крепи тъкмо на изолираност, провинциалност и страх от другия. На експлозивната смес от свръхгорделивост и срам. Само не казвайте, че това не се отнася и за нас..." Георги Господинов Редактирано от - Чичо Фичо на 06/2/2006 г/ 01:53:41 |