The Good Husband’s Guide

Posted by on

There is a 14th Century Parisian book of household management called The Good Wife’s Guide: A Medieval Household Book. This is a compendium of medieval lore which aimed to instruct young wives how to be good, efficient, and obedient. The following is an excerpt from a section entitled “Care of the Husband’s Person”:

“Therefore love your husband’s person carefully. I entreat you to see that he has clean linen, for that is your domain, while the concerns and troubles of men are those outside affairs that they must handle, amidst coming and going, running here and there, in rain, wind, snow and hail, sometimes drenched, sometimes dry, now sweating, now shivering, ill-fed, ill-lodged, ill-shod and poorly rested. Yet nothing represents a hardship for him, because the thought of his wife’s good care for him on his return comforts him immensely. The ease, joys and pleasures he knows she will provide for him herself, or have done for him in his presence, cheer him: removing his shoes in front of a good fire, washing his feet, offering clean shoes, and socks, serving plenteous food and drink …. she puts him to sleep in white sheets and his nightcap, covered with good furs, and satisfies him with other joys and amusements, intimacies, loves and secrets about which I remain silent.

With the above in mind let us now fast forward seven hundred years, noting the changed roles of husband and wife. This is the modern version:

Care of the Wife’s Person

Therefore love your wife’s person carefully. I entreat you, before you sit down to watch sport on television all day with a can of beer in hand, to see that she has clean underclothes, for the washing machine is your domain, as is the washing up and the making of the bed in the morning. The concerns and troubles of women are those outside affairs that they must handle, amidst taking the children to school, getting the car serviced, running here and there in rain, wind, snow and hail, sometimes drenched, sometimes dry, now sweating, now shivering, dealing with the bank, the mortgage and an unsympathetic boss, buying new shoes for the children and taking them to football practice, violin lessons and ballet; getting her facial, haircut and manicure and answering all the emails during her half hour lunch break.

Despite eating on the run, arranging all the social commitments and the visits of plumbers and electricians, nothing represents a hardship for her, because the thought of her husband’s good care for her on her return home comforts her immensely. The ease, joys and pleasures she knows he will cheer her: removing her shoes in front of a good fire, washing her feet, offering clean shoes, and socks, cooking plenteous food and pouring copious drink …. he puts her to sleep in white sheets, and, after he brings her a nice hot drink of cocoa and she has taken her anti-depressants, he tries to satisfies her with other joys and amusements, intimacies, loves and secrets, before she falls asleep exhausted. As to his feelings about this I will remain silent.
——————————————-
The Good Wife’s Guide: A Medieval Household Book is translated by Gina Greco and Christine Rose and published by Cornell, £16.95, ISBN 978-0-8014-7474-3.

The 800 US military bases

Posted by on

“As an imperial power, there’s never been anything like the United States when it comes to garrisoning this planet. By comparison, the Romans and imperial Chinese were pikers; the Soviet Union in its prime was the poorest of runners-up; even the British, at the moment when the sun theoretically never set on their empire, didn’t compare. The U.S. has some 800 military bases ranging in size from small American towns to tiny outposts across the planet, and yet you could spend weeks, months, years paying careful attention to the media here and still have no idea that this was so. There is no discussion, nor does Congress hold hearings on global basing policy; reporters aren’t sent out to cover the subject; and presidents never mention it in speeches to the nation.

“There is an occasional mention of bases in South Korea or Bahrain, home of the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, but that is about all. Don’t even think to ask just why the U.S. garrisons the planet in this fashion or what it might mean. It would be un-American of you to do so.

“Now, without notice, discussion, or debate, a network of bases is appearing in Africa,ensuring that the U.S is involved with wars on that continent for decades to come.
The huge presence of the Chinese in almost every African country is the reason. (adapted and edited from an article in Tomgram)

The Chinese are there to exploit the mineral wealth and, no doubt, other things as well. And all building done by (imported) Chinese-only workers is done to the enrich of the elites and the well-connected, with with little gain to the general African populations. But what are the American military supposed to do in the sweltering heat? At what point can we expect them to say “Enough of your plunder, thank you, clear out!” – and then start a war? Heaven preserve us.

Epicurus and Pro-Europeanism

Posted by on

This is the second of my Epicurus and Modern Philosophy series. I will continue this series for many months to come, though I’m not sure if it’ll run as frequently as every fortnight. Whenever a post of mine is titled, ‘Epicurus and…’, then you know it’s part of the Modern Philosophy series. I’ll also be frequently posting about the forthcoming General Election in the UK, starting with a post about this Thursday’s local election results and what they could mean for the General next week. 

Prior to Britain’s referendum on its EU membership, both Robert and I were passionate supporters of the Remain campaign, though admittedly I was late to the party. In addition to writing pro-EU comments on this blog, I gave out leaflets and knocked on doors in South West England on behalf of the Remain campaign. Needless to say, our efforts were unsuccessful. I have tried to avoid being totally despondent regarding Britain’s future outside of the EU, but I cannot pretend to be more optimistic than reason allows me to be. Only today, in a meeting with the President of the European Commission, Theresa May seemed to be clueless about the EU’s negotiating position, despite the EU having made it plain what it was. For instance, she didn’t appreciate how important to EU member states a divorce bill would be; EU budgets work in a seven year cycle, so were Britain to abdicate from paying its obligations, other states would have to foot the bill. Such ignorant utopianism seems increasingly characteristic of the governing Conservative Party, in which many of its members are blasé about the economic damage inflicted by leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. For these so-called ‘Hard Brexiteers’,  any costs of quitting the EU are worth it because of the opportunity to reduce immigration and regulations concerning the environment and employees’ rights. Going forward, it’s hard to see a scenario in which Britain ends up better off as a result of Brexit. For the most part, this is a question of damage limitation, as the EU27 are suggesting.

Although I’m writing this when its far too late, I wanted to take the chance to explain why Robert and I, as Epicureans, are pro-European. As I’ve just mentioned, economics was a crucial factor. The EU costs a relatively small sum of European GDP, about 1%. (http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/myths/myths_en.cfm) In exchange, it achieves an awful lot for its member states: free trade, regulation harmonisation to make it easier to do business across borders, funds for struggling regions, a common currency for the Eurozone, assistance in managing refugees and migrants from outside the EU, agriculture subsidies to prevent farmers from going out of business and individual member states from excessive subsidies of their own, funding for science, free trade deals with non-EU states (about 55 so far), protections against excessive pollution and over-fishing, fair competition laws- amongst other things. Even if Britain is a net contributor, the EU is hardly a massive drain on the economy. The economic benefits of Single Market membership outweigh our net contribution considerably.

However,  one of the mistakes the Remain campaign made was that it focused too heavily on the monetary costs of leaving. Given that no country has left the EU before, Leave campaigners understandably pointed out that no one could be certain on the precise costs of Brexit. The Remain campaign overplayed its hand, forecasting calamitous economic damage the moment Britain voted to leave. This came across as fear mongering. Pro-EU supporters should’ve emphasised how precisely the EU benefits the UK, rather than scare people into voting for the status quo. Having said that, just because some Remain supporters overestimated the immediate costs of voting Leave, doesn’t mean that leaving the EU will be economically positive. The economy is beginning to slow down along with wage growth, and inflation has risen considerably. The Pound, which fell considerably following the referendum result, has failed to recover since. As mentioned before, many Leave supporters are filled with over-confidence, believing that because the economy hasn’t crashed thus far, Britain will be fine regardless of the outcome of the Article 50 process. As well as being a naïve fantasy, such a disposition is profoundly un-conservative. Leave voters ought to be cautious and tepid, not brazen and smug.

Being pro-European is about much more than economics. Another mistake of the Remain campaign is that it ought to have defended the free movement of labour that accompanies EU membership more boldly. EU migrants are net contributors to the Treasury, as opposed to native-born Brits, most of whom are net recipients. EU migrants do not increase unemployment or lower wages. The former is because the economy naturally expands to cover the increased population, like when women entered the labour market. The latter is because EU migrants increase the amount of economic activity, offsetting any short-term downward pressure on wages as a result of competition for jobs. Contrary to popular belief, immigration to the UK is not out of control- non-student net migration is only 164 000 per annum. Although there are legitimate issues around immigration, such as the pressure on housing or the ability of migrants to speak English, those problems are not as severe as the skills shortages and more rapidly ageing population the UK would face in the absence of EU migrants. Just as importantly, free movement means the unconditional right of British people to live, study and work anywhere in the EU. No amount of reduced migration is worth sacrificing that freedom.

Overall, the EU is a more civilised way of governing society than the pre-WW2 notion of absolute nation-state sovereignty. The benefits to the economy and the free movement of people would not be possible were it not for a degree of supranational governance. If nothing else, WW2 demonstrated the horrors that can result from national governments being able to do as they please, with only the military might of other governments to keep them in check. I accept that we still live in a world of international anarchy, where brute force remains the ultimate means of protection. But I also believe that intergovernmental co-operation can mitigate some of the effects of that harsh reality. Given that the world is increasingly globalised, with national governments powerless against the forces of international capital, we can only make meaningful policies by working on a supranational basis. Issues like climate change, terrorism, mass migration, the increasing power of rogue states like China and Iran- all really ought to be dealt with on a global level. But since most of the world does not share Europe’s (relatively) liberal values and level of economic development, the EU is the next best thing. It increases freedom and prosperity in an unfree and poor planet. And it disperses power between itself and its constituent nations, preventing aggressive protectionism, jingoism and any possible intra-European warmongering.

 

The climate change protest

Posted by on

Yesterday my wife and I joined the Climate Change march in Washington DC. Great cries of “shame” rang out ss we marched past the Trump Hotel in the 91 degree hèat, an all-time high for April 29th. A man dressed in a huge polar bear outfit had to be escorted away from the crowd after he nearly psssed out in the heat. What was wonderful was the passion and commitment of the thousands of young and very diverse people, in particular. One of our party came fron San Francisco for the march, and almost every corner of the country was represented. It wiil be the young people who will suffer most from the science-hostile short-sightedness of those who say that “climate change is unproven”.

Some messages from the placards, at random:

A comb-over won’t fix climate change

Make America smart again

There are no jobs on a dead planet

There is no other planet

Good planets are hard to find

Make the Earth great again

The other population crisis: livestock require 75% of farmland

Posted by on

I have in the past pointed to the projected growth of the global population – from seven billion to 11 billion by 2100 – as a major environmental problem. But a bigger population crisis, from the ecological point of view, concerns not humans but farm animals, whose numbers are growing twice as fast. Raising livestock requires a vast amount of resources, and 75% of the world’s farmland; a third of all cereal crops are used to feed them. Livestock farming creates 14% of all greenhouse emissions – more than cars, trains, planes and ships combined. And the “tide of slurry” they produce is overwhelming the world’s capacity to absorb it. Factory farms in the US generate 13 times more waste than the US human population.

The moral is clear: if we were to eat less meat and dairy, our environmental impact would be slashed overnight. George Monbiot writes, “But while plenty in the rich world are happy to discuss the dangers of brown people reproducing, the other population crisis scarcely crosses the threshold of perception.” (Based on an article by Monbiot in The Guardian)

Crook rescue

Posted by on

In a letter sent recently, Mrs. Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, withdrew several policy memos from the previous administration involving consumer protections for student loan borrowers. Student loan repayment is managed in part by for-profit loan servicers. In her letter, DeVos cited the need to limit the cost to taxpayers of loan servicing. The Obama-era guidance had instead emphasized protection for borrowers.

This may be good news for Navient, the largest student loan servicer. The Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently sued Navient, alleging that it “illegally cheated borrowers” out of their rights and their money — as much as $4 billion — through patterns of deception and misapplying payments.

Navient has denied wrongdoing, calling the suit “unsubstantiated, unjustified and politically driven.” So why do they think that could possibly be, and where did they get that idea? Why, from students who have been exploited, misled and cheated perhaps – or who just feel they have been cheated.

Navient, formerly called Sallie Mae, is the most complained about financial company in America, according the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In one year alone, reports issued about Navient rose a whopping 813% year over year, with complaints about misleading borrowers and bungling students’ payments, according to BuzzFeed.

Navient had more complaints than any other financial service including credit reporting companies — like Equifax, Experian, and Transunion — along with major banks like Capital One, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase. A student loan services might be expected to encourage students to learn, to teach them how to handle money, not scare them off higher ecucation. Navient oversees about $300 billion in student loans owed by 12 million borrowers. It seems that there are a lot of unhappy students out there, and De Vos wants to reduce their safeguards and protections even further, reducing lending costs and in reasing profit – from students! May heaven help us!

Student loans shouldn’t be operated for profit. Period. But there is always some well- heeled gent with good political connections who can profit from an idea in return for election donations. Sad.

Wild animals are dying off

Posted by on

Global wildlife populations are set to fall by more than two-thirds since 1970 by the end of the decade, warns the Living Planet report by WWF and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL). The assessment of more than 14,000 populations of 3706 species of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles from around the world reveals a 58 per cent fall between 1970 and 2012 – with no sign that the average yearly 2 per cent drop in numbers will slow.

The figures have prompted experts to warn that nature is facing a global “mass extinction” for the first time since the demise of the dinosaurs. Species are being affected by unsustainable agriculture, fishing, mining and other human activities that threaten habitats, as well as climate change and pollution. “Human behaviour continues to drive the decline of wildlife populations globally, with particular impact on freshwater habitats,” said Ken Norris, director of science at ZSL. But he stressed that, so far, these are declines rather than extinctions. “This should be a wake-up call to marshal efforts to promote the recovery of these populations,” he said. (New Scientist)

We need these animal populations to recover for all sorts of reasons, food in the form of the fish in the sea being among the most important, along with bees. You might think of a score of others animals on which we humans rely, one way or another. Epicurus would have pointed out that we depend all of us upon one another, and our careless, uncaring and cruel treatment of the animal kingdom is not only amoral but self-defeating. But don’t expect most of the world leaders we have at the moment to care a tuppenny toss about anyone or anything except their bank accounts and fellow millionaires.

The hopeless American healthcare system

Posted by on

With development, health outcomes generally improve, but the U.S. is an anomaly. The U.S. and the U.K. are both high-income, highly developed countries. The U.K. spends less per person ($3,749) on health care than the U.S. ($9,237). Despite its high spending, the U.S. does not have the best health outcomes. Life expectancy, for example, is 79.1 years in the U.S. and 80.9 years in the U.K. And while the U.S. spends more on health care than any country in the world, it ranks 12th in life expectancy among the 12 wealthiest industrialized countries, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit organization focusing on health issues.(NPR website, April 21, 2017)

The British are constantly complaining about the National Health Service, and I have no doubt that, starved of funds and investment, it is creaking. Nonetheless, if you are really ill (not just waiting for a new hip) the NHS is brilliant and looks after you well. Americans po-poo it: socialised medicine they call it. But then the NHS runs on the smell of an oily rag in comparison to the American system, which sucks up about double the GNP compared with the British and other health systems. Why? Because at every turn someone has to make, not just an income, but a profit.

At its best American healthcare is excellent, but with one proviso – you have to be well-off or work for a generous company. Even so, this must be the only country where the patient has to spend hours on the phone trying to get insurance companies to do their job. Case in point : I have waited for weeks now to get pre-authorisation for a dental procedure. Wait, wait wait. I said to the person on the other end of the phone:”As it happens, I am not at death’s door, but nonetheless, here I am spending ages trying to satisfy your requirements as to the necessity and nature of the procedure. Were I on my deathbed how could I do this? The patient shouldn’t have to be constantly on the phone to find out what further information the insurance company needs”. The truth behind all this is that the insurance company doesn’t want to fork out and hopes you give up.

A fine mess the country has got itself into; and I haven’t even started on Obamacare and its successor, or the dire healthcare given to the poor and returning sick soldiers, or those with medical pre-conditions who are sick, and get dumped by insurance companies. Meanwhile, the Republicans cannot agree amonst themselves, but are quite likely to make matters worse. Unless you are rich.

Trigger warnings

Posted by on

If you go to the website of London’s Royal Court Theatre, you’ll find a paragraph headed “Trigger Warnings”, advising that some plays contain material “that can be particularly distressing for some individuals”. If you’re an author who thinks your new book may cause offence, you can get a “sensitivity reader” to vet it. We now spend a lot of time agonising over people’s feelings. Hardly a day goes by without someone trying to ban something: students at a US university have banned the “alt-right” provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos from giving a talk, fearing he’d create an “unsafe space” for people on campus. Such moves, however well-intentioned, are based on the flawed assumption that people are so fragile they must be shielded from things that may upset them. Wrong. As the eminent psychiatrist Sir Simon Wessely discovered after the 7/7 London bombings, the counselling given to the survivors actually made many feel worse. “People are tougher than we think,” and it is by facing up to our fears that we overcome them. Instead of searching out sources of offence, we must trust in people’s adaptability and resilience. (David Aaronovitch, The Times)

It would be nice if the world were rational, placid, kind and considerate, all things valued by Epicurus. But it isn’t and won’t ever be, because there are many bullies, greedy manipulators and people ruthlessly trying to get ahead. They have always existed and always will. Epicurus advised us to avoid them and to concentrate on friends and activities we enjoy, the purpose being to have a pleasant and as joy-filled life as possible. Trigger warnings are patronising and unnnecessary. If you go to a play that is disturbing and the language too vulgar for you, walk out. If you are confronted by disagreeable people, simply walk away. At some point you have to grow up. The world is what it is. You can exert influence in the right direction, but you cannot cure all ills.

An Epicurean’s response to death

Posted by on

This is a short piece I wrote in response to a close friend of mine, who was experiencing severe thanatophobia (fear of death.) I think it is consistent with the Epicurean view on death, but let me now if there’s anything wrong with it. I’ll be continuing my Modern Philosophy series next week, and look out for any additional posts on the upcoming General Election in the UK. 

The solution to the fear of death is the belief that mortality is good: that an immortal life would be pointless due to the absence of a teleology, or something to work towards by a set time. Conversely, mortality is what gives the world purpose: it’s what drives both human progress and biological evolution, it’s what defines us as a species. In other words, if we didn’t die, we wouldn’t be human.

Death is what makes life life; without it, life would not be life, but merely a continuation of existence in perpetuity. This is because an immortal life would have no raison d’etre, as there would be no definitive point in which you could have said you have accomplished your life’s goals. In a finite life, you can only set out a limited number of things you desire to achieve. Once you have achieved them, you could say your life has fulfilled its purpose. An immortal life has no such luxury. You would have an infinite number of goals, as you would have an infinite amount of time in which to achieve them. Thus, you would be shackled to the obligations of existence, with no possibility of release.

It’s no exaggeration to say that there are no advantages to immortality. None. You would live forever, but so what. As any economist will tell you, the less of something there is, the more its value. An immortal life would be worthless. Everyday would not be a day to be cherished or enjoyed, nor a unique opportunity to do something valuable. It would merely be a continuation of the existing state of affairs ad infinitum.

But even if I’m wrong, and immortality is something to be desired, the fear of death is still irrational. It prevents you from enjoying your life. It fills you with anxiety. It causes you to hypothesise untenable propositions about the possibility of an afterlife. In turn, this is often used to exploit people, to enslave them in this life in exchange for emancipation in the next. The fear of death becomes a means in which the powerful control the lives of those too miserable in their predicament to refrain from considering the promise of a better life, however farfetched it may be.  

As the late Christopher Hitchens said, ‘there is nothing more, but I want nothing more.’ Immortality is not an ideal, but a dystopian notion; a distraction used to wreck havoc in the lives of the poorest and the most vulnerable. In contrast, death is not to be feared, but to be welcomed. It is the most effective way of driving us to make the most of our lives, and the only way of relieving us from the burdens of existence.

Setbacks

Posted by on

“Conventional measures of potential, such as IQ tests, turn out to be rather impotent unless yoked to deeper aspects of character: the willingness to work through difficulties, and not be threatened by the failures that are an inevitable aspect of life.

“The problem is that we live in an X Factor culture world that is all about instant success and gratification. If kids think success happens effortlessly, why would they bother to persevere when they hit challenges and difficulties?”

People who haven’t developed the traits required for dealing with setbacks are often flustered by ambiguity and challenge. Well-adjusted young people do not ignore failuures, or give up when faced by them, but learn from them and don’t make the same mistakes again. Mistakes are learning opportunities, build resilience and self-understanding. Karl Popper is quoted as saying, “True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it”. (Mathew Said in The Guardian Weekly (edited))

Grit is the word I would use. It is a rare person who gets through life without a setback, mistake or crisis. One has to take it as calmly as possible, determine not to let it happen again, put it behind you and set out to do better next time. It’s a frame of mind.

“Now people will hate you again”.

Posted by on

Julian Barnes, in an article on 20 April 2017 asks what vision Brexiteers have for the future of Britain. “It seems”, he writes, “a mixture of Merrie England, Toytown and Singapore. Outward-looking in the sense of “open for business”, which tends to to mean “up for sale’; inward looking in other senses. Morally depleted by cutting ourselves off from Europe and sheltering beneath Trump’s fragrant armpit. What might we end up as? Perhaps a kind of Bigger Belgium, with quasi-American values and torn into separate nations again. Do we seriously think that those who voted for Brexit are going to be better off under this state-shrinking government? (I can’t recall the phrase ‘Poorer but Happier’ being used) That the NHS will be properly funded? That the increasing numbers on zero-hours contracts will not be exploited further? That the old winners will be the new, even bigger winners? Do we seriously believe that Mrs May, when she wins her election, will construct a ‘country that works for everyone’?”

“The Australian, Simon Leys, wrote about Australia: ‘Culture is born out of exchanges and thrives on differences. In this sense ‘national culture’ is a self-contradiction, and multiculturalism a pleonasm*. The death of culture lies in self-centredness and isolation”. The first concern should not be to create an Australian culture but a cultured Australia’.”

Julian Barnes continues by saying what I also half-feel in my conflicted heart. I love the country of my birth and owe it a huge debt. At the same time the aggressiveness and arrogance of the Brexiteers, who claim fallaciously that ‘The People have Spoken’ cannot help making one half hope that Europe will make the UK pay up all it owes, and keep it waiting for a deal; that Trump will ignore the Brits or make a humiliating offer; that those who wanted the departure of the East Europeans will find that it is now they who have to dig the potatoes and care for the old and dying; that the same people will find that they are worse off financially not better off at all; that the EU handouts will not be replaced by the British government; and that the safeguards and human rights brought them by the EU are dismantled and they are exploited with year-only contracts as never before; and that, as in America, the whole, but secret, idea was to enhance and fortify the power of the rich and the corporations.

But I also hope (against hope) that Britain will come out of the EU without too much collateral damage and that Epicurean moderation will win the day. If the above horrors occur they will affect my sons, my grandchildren and our friends. A mix of right-wing buffoons in charge and the Daily Mail braying in the background is not a good start, and many are convinced that foreigners will hate the Brits again. Let us pray not.

* Pleonasm: The use of more words than are necessary to convey meaning. The problem is very common in a country where people are paid by the number of words, not the depth of thought.

Using your common sense: applying for a job

Posted by on

19% of employers have rejected a candidate for a job on account of their online activity. 56% would be put off hiring someone who used bad spelling and grammar on social media; 26% would be put off by signs of vanity, such as excessive displays of selfies. (YouGov)

Am I the only person who is disturbed by the above statistics? Why would 44% of potential employers even consider employing someone who “used bad spelling and grammar” on social media? Certainly, signs of vanity and self-promotion would put me off. Inspecting a potential employee’s output on Facebook is a good way of getting a feel for the sort of person an applicant is. If you don’t want to be judged by someone else, then don’t go on social media at all. Duh!

Long live regulations!

Posted by on

People of a right- wing disposition complain about the scores of rules and regulations put out by government. Let them stop and ponder the following:

If ruthless people stopped breaking the normal rules of civilised conduct there would be no need for any regulations at all.

If bankers stuck to lending to deserving businesses and individuals instead of trying to make fortunes in a week, there would be no call for regulations.

If companies paid a living wage, offered civilised things like pensions, decent holidays, safe environments, good terms of employment, no one would waste their time drawing up regulations governing employment.

One could wrire a book along these lines. In short, if we all acted with thoughtfulness and consideration towards our fellow citizens, in the spirit of Epicurus, we could have a government without rule-makers. The complainers are pointing their fingers in the wrong direction.

Cultural appropriation

Posted by on

Themed balls
Trinity Hall is a Cambridge College. Students there organised a Japan-themed ball, for which they were severely criticised. Students at Pembroke College cancelled a party themed on Around the World in Eighty Days, for which they had also been taken to task for “cultural appropriation”. These criticisms are riddled with irony. The idea that when we imitate something we are seeking to appropriate it, rather than appreciate it, is absurd. (Letter to the Time, author unknown)

Cricket
Cricket was originally a white Anglo-Saxon sport but it is now far more popular in Asian countries, so are they guilty of “cultural appropriation”? Adopting and developing a great passion for cricket is a tribute to its founders, and today it is a wonderful sport that is shared between countries, cultures and ethnicities. It has been globally elevated, not appropriated by anyone. The notion of “cultural appropriation” is an example of a more sinister politically correct mentality that is beginning to seep into our whole society. It must be refuted by intelligent people who truly value assimilation and integration as the way toward a more peaceful and harmonious society. (Mike Kemp, Truro, Cornwall 19 March 2016 The Week)

Jesus College, Cambridge
A large brass cockerel was taken by “vengeful Brits” in 1897, during a punitive expedition against the oba (king) of Benin, during which they pillaged a fortune in magnificent bronze sculptures, including the cockerel. The said cockerel was bequeathed in 1930 to the college (whose coat of arms features three cocks), and was proudly displayed in the dining hall – until last week, when Jesus’s students, inflamed by recent campaigns to right colonial-era wrongs, voted to return it to Nigeria. Even though the college obtained the bronze “entirely legitimately”, the authorities have now removed it from the hall, and are looking into the question of repatriation. I don’t blame the students – “idealism, like drunkenness, is an inevitable consequence of studenthood” – but, really, the dons should know better. (Tony Allen-Mills in The Sunday Times)

Editor’s note: such shenanigans never occur at Oxford, a large, respectable and august university, where the students are diligent, where they have better things to do with their time, such as “appropriating” thoughts and ideas from all over the world, thinking about them and critiquing them. This is what they are at university to do.

I personally have “culturally appropriated” the thought of Epicurus, or tried to. It would be nice if more people did the same. Epicurus wouldn’t complain.