Fairouz - HOLLANDFESTIVAL
Friday, 24 June 2011
Fairouz in the Koninklijk Theater Carré Amsterdam
The Holland Festival 2011 gives honor to whom honor is due, after the legend Fela Kuti, the libanese Angel, Fairouz.
In March the 2nd, in one single hour, the concert was sold out. In the black market, prices reached 300 euros.
The Libanese Diva "... is widely known as the Angel of Lebanon. Legendary singer Fairouz is revered throughout the Middle-East and beyond. She performed in all the major cities of the Arabic world, in world cities such as London, New York and Paris, but never before in Amsterdam. Fairouz is unique in weaving together the diverse traditions of the Arab world with her passionate songs of love, loneliness and longing. She is heard in the shops, taxis and tea houses from Bagdad to Casablanca, from Rabat to Rotterdam and from Jerusalem to Paris. Fairouz is with¬out a doubt the most famous and popular singer in the Arab world. A classic concert in the making." dixit Carré
http://www.hollandfestival.nl/page.ocl?pageid=43&show=4456
In March the 2nd, in one single hour, the concert was sold out. In the black market, prices reached 300 euros.
The Libanese Diva "... is widely known as the Angel of Lebanon. Legendary singer Fairouz is revered throughout the Middle-East and beyond. She performed in all the major cities of the Arabic world, in world cities such as London, New York and Paris, but never before in Amsterdam. Fairouz is unique in weaving together the diverse traditions of the Arab world with her passionate songs of love, loneliness and longing. She is heard in the shops, taxis and tea houses from Bagdad to Casablanca, from Rabat to Rotterdam and from Jerusalem to Paris. Fairouz is with¬out a doubt the most famous and popular singer in the Arab world. A classic concert in the making." dixit Carré
http://www.hollandfestival.nl/page.ocl?pageid=43&show=4456
Monday, 20 June 2011
Odious aid to Tunisia and Egypt!
It is certainly not a pure coincidence that the Tunisian Prime Minister went to France and met President Nicolas Sarkozy few days only before the G8 in Deauville. This was part of the preparations for the summit that decided to grant 14 billion to Tunisia and Egypt as a financial aid to the transition process in which both countries are engaged. However, this aid is part of an international policy based on the mechanism of the so-called "odious debt" and has always been an instrument of support to the former regimes. I am against this aid to Tunisia ... Why?
- Because I think that this is an intolerable contradiction: the G8 does not intend to change its policy toward these two countries and review the logic of the international debt, it accordingly cannot be consistent with itself and support any change as their populations are claiming? The G8 has in fact never listened to the people, it always lent ear only to corrupted regimes as far as they serve its interest.
- Because all economists around the world say it: international debt is odious in the sense that it is an instrument against the development of those countries that perceive it, whereas it is supposed to help them emerge and prosper. It is rather a non-equitable investment under the laughable label of development assistance; International community takes with one hand much more than what it gives with the other.
- Because it is so absurd to appear as a benefactor when one asks Tunisia to pay installments according to an agreement contracted with the former regime from which the West, now, dissociates itself and behaves as if it has never been its accomplice neither had it supported while being perfectly on the lookout of its corruption. According to what kind of common sense can a country, which economy is almost on its knees, be asked to pay 411 million US dollar? It is even more absurd when everybody admits at the same time that it needs much more consistent financial assistance to go over the transition period that will lead to a new era of democracy and economic recovery.
- Because the one who negotiate this "aid", in this case the Tunisian prime minister whose nomination is not the result of democratic elections. It is a remnant of the old regime with which the "democratic forces" the world's most powerful and richest countries of the West had made a deal in order to plunder the riches of the Tunisian people.
- Because it is an absurd contradiction to go on negotiating with a government that still practices the censorship of the press, arrests protesters, refuses still to handle cases of corruption involving officials of the former regime and continues to repress peaceful demonstrations with violence using batons and teargas,...
- Because the West still chooses the policy of the ostrich and prefers to be deaf and blind. It still refuses to listen to the voice of the Tunisian people, not even being fairly consistent with the reports of its own secret services on the actual situation of this people and still prefers to deal with political elite just for that it provides an order in favor of its own benefit. No matter the Youth and its aspirations, neither the real and true development. Whatever the reason for which young people died, it doesn’t really matter. No matter what the streets of Tunisia says about the transitory government accusing it of betraying its revolutionary aspirations and its trust.
- Because what matters first and foremost is to stop the flow of emigration and illegal immigration. What matters also is the voracity of multinational corporations continuing pump with impunity, like blood-leeches, the money of poor people.
- Because the world politics has its hands tied by corporate power and lobbies. Western governments have elections and must above all be thinking about financing their companions. Because after all, each is firstly interested in cleaning its own porch and what utterly counts for everyone is the next election.
- Because what counts is a arrangement between an international policy committed to serve multinationals of the most powerful and richest countries and the political elite of the “poor” ones who, either voluntarily, corruptly or even by necessity, is forced to play a role in the farce of post colonialism and serve as a simple instrument to an international order necessarily crappy and unfair.
- Because it is unfair that the French government, which hosts the G8, wants to still play the role of protector of the Tunisian people. The same government was surprised not long ago in the act of giving yet another stab in the back of Tunisians supporting logistically Tunisian police to quell the protesters, many of which were dying in the streets of Tunisia. And is thought right that wrong by appearing in the role of one who stands up for those with Tunisian creditor who seek to actually push this country further in debt he could never fulfill.
- Because guardianship, we know from the Protectorate of 1881 [1] which legalized the settlement, has never served if the guardian himself. Even with the old regime, support was falsely hypocrite because he has never relied on aid real desires but on common interests of small and even small stones too Catholic: Southern elites s enrichment at the expense of their populations, the North on the back of everybody. The former are eventually reduced ultimately to the status of small bundles villains thieves hiding in the secret drawer of the libraries they probably do not read books, others are misrepresenting as benefactors of the disadvantaged people and support them in their uprising .
But I'm mostly against this international assistance to Tunisia because he does not seem to me equally clear that Tunisia needs, the least we can say that more aid is malicious if:
- Because a simple arithmetic operation has shown how it is despicable. The G8, "no matter how generously say" decides to unlock $ 14 billion for Tunisia and Egypt. However, the property of the two fallen dictators, Ben Ali and Mubarak and their families, located mainly in Europe, would amount to 50 billion for the first and 70 for the second. A student's base school will not have to think twice to say without hesitation and that the account is not there.
- Because of the $ 411 million that Tunisia is required to pay (half of each please) to these creditors, mainly the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the European Bank, the Tunisian people can easily recover its economy after two or three years no more.
- Because in spite of this unjust debt and despite the economic and financial hemorrhage which was due to the corruption of its political elite, Tunisia succeeded in developing a rate of around 6% per year [2]. Imagine a time after the revolution, these two burdens are gone. This rate is just going to triple. I am certainly not an economist but the computing operation is again a blindingly obvious.
[1] Date of commencement of the French protectorate in Tunisia.
[2] Almost the same rate as the Brazils or India.
- Because I think that this is an intolerable contradiction: the G8 does not intend to change its policy toward these two countries and review the logic of the international debt, it accordingly cannot be consistent with itself and support any change as their populations are claiming? The G8 has in fact never listened to the people, it always lent ear only to corrupted regimes as far as they serve its interest.
- Because all economists around the world say it: international debt is odious in the sense that it is an instrument against the development of those countries that perceive it, whereas it is supposed to help them emerge and prosper. It is rather a non-equitable investment under the laughable label of development assistance; International community takes with one hand much more than what it gives with the other.
- Because it is so absurd to appear as a benefactor when one asks Tunisia to pay installments according to an agreement contracted with the former regime from which the West, now, dissociates itself and behaves as if it has never been its accomplice neither had it supported while being perfectly on the lookout of its corruption. According to what kind of common sense can a country, which economy is almost on its knees, be asked to pay 411 million US dollar? It is even more absurd when everybody admits at the same time that it needs much more consistent financial assistance to go over the transition period that will lead to a new era of democracy and economic recovery.
- Because the one who negotiate this "aid", in this case the Tunisian prime minister whose nomination is not the result of democratic elections. It is a remnant of the old regime with which the "democratic forces" the world's most powerful and richest countries of the West had made a deal in order to plunder the riches of the Tunisian people.
- Because it is an absurd contradiction to go on negotiating with a government that still practices the censorship of the press, arrests protesters, refuses still to handle cases of corruption involving officials of the former regime and continues to repress peaceful demonstrations with violence using batons and teargas,...
- Because the West still chooses the policy of the ostrich and prefers to be deaf and blind. It still refuses to listen to the voice of the Tunisian people, not even being fairly consistent with the reports of its own secret services on the actual situation of this people and still prefers to deal with political elite just for that it provides an order in favor of its own benefit. No matter the Youth and its aspirations, neither the real and true development. Whatever the reason for which young people died, it doesn’t really matter. No matter what the streets of Tunisia says about the transitory government accusing it of betraying its revolutionary aspirations and its trust.
- Because what matters first and foremost is to stop the flow of emigration and illegal immigration. What matters also is the voracity of multinational corporations continuing pump with impunity, like blood-leeches, the money of poor people.
- Because the world politics has its hands tied by corporate power and lobbies. Western governments have elections and must above all be thinking about financing their companions. Because after all, each is firstly interested in cleaning its own porch and what utterly counts for everyone is the next election.
- Because what counts is a arrangement between an international policy committed to serve multinationals of the most powerful and richest countries and the political elite of the “poor” ones who, either voluntarily, corruptly or even by necessity, is forced to play a role in the farce of post colonialism and serve as a simple instrument to an international order necessarily crappy and unfair.
- Because it is unfair that the French government, which hosts the G8, wants to still play the role of protector of the Tunisian people. The same government was surprised not long ago in the act of giving yet another stab in the back of Tunisians supporting logistically Tunisian police to quell the protesters, many of which were dying in the streets of Tunisia. And is thought right that wrong by appearing in the role of one who stands up for those with Tunisian creditor who seek to actually push this country further in debt he could never fulfill.
- Because guardianship, we know from the Protectorate of 1881 [1] which legalized the settlement, has never served if the guardian himself. Even with the old regime, support was falsely hypocrite because he has never relied on aid real desires but on common interests of small and even small stones too Catholic: Southern elites s enrichment at the expense of their populations, the North on the back of everybody. The former are eventually reduced ultimately to the status of small bundles villains thieves hiding in the secret drawer of the libraries they probably do not read books, others are misrepresenting as benefactors of the disadvantaged people and support them in their uprising .
But I'm mostly against this international assistance to Tunisia because he does not seem to me equally clear that Tunisia needs, the least we can say that more aid is malicious if:
- Because a simple arithmetic operation has shown how it is despicable. The G8, "no matter how generously say" decides to unlock $ 14 billion for Tunisia and Egypt. However, the property of the two fallen dictators, Ben Ali and Mubarak and their families, located mainly in Europe, would amount to 50 billion for the first and 70 for the second. A student's base school will not have to think twice to say without hesitation and that the account is not there.
- Because of the $ 411 million that Tunisia is required to pay (half of each please) to these creditors, mainly the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the European Bank, the Tunisian people can easily recover its economy after two or three years no more.
- Because in spite of this unjust debt and despite the economic and financial hemorrhage which was due to the corruption of its political elite, Tunisia succeeded in developing a rate of around 6% per year [2]. Imagine a time after the revolution, these two burdens are gone. This rate is just going to triple. I am certainly not an economist but the computing operation is again a blindingly obvious.
[1] Date of commencement of the French protectorate in Tunisia.
[2] Almost the same rate as the Brazils or India.
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Sembène : l’éternelle leçon
L’équipe qui se cache derrière cette initiative a bien tenu le pari. On savait qu’à l’occasion du fespaco (février dernier) un hommage allait être rendu à Sembène. Le livre aura été au rendez-vous. Une effigie grandeur nature lui aura été érigée sur la place des cinéastes de la capitale du Burkina Faso. La même ville éternisera son nom en baptisant l’une de ses grandes artères en son nom. Qu’y a-t-il de mieux pour saluer un romancier et un cinéaste qu’un livre ! C’est toute l’idée de ce projet. Simple symbolique, mais surtout digne.
Coordonné par Thierno Ibrahima Dia, universitaire et critique de cinéma sénégalais basé à Bordeaux, le livre fait intervenir plusieurs plumes. Objectif, essayer de cerner la vie et l’œuvre de celui qui aura marqué l’histoire et la culture africaine et mondiale. Les différentes contributions paraitront à l’évidence comme une multiplicité de regards, autant les facettes du personnage sont difficile, voire même impossible à cerner.
Intitulé tout simplement Sembène Ousmane (1923-2007), le livre dit beaucoup sur son sujet. Il contient des témoignages de ceux qui auront connu Sembène de près. Ce sont des collaborateurs comme Clarence Thomas Delgado. Ce sont des écrivains qui ont été témoin de la gestation de son œuvre littéraire comme Boris Diop. Ce sont des universitaires qui connaissent son œuvre et l’enseigne en guise de reconnaissance Keyan G. Tomaselli, Sada Niang, Maguèye Kassé. Ce sont des critiques de cinéma qui ont accompagné ses films par le monde entier tel Virginie Andriamirado, Giuzeppe Gariazzo, d’autre qui avaient appris beaucoup sur son art en assistant à ses leçons de cinéma comme Thierno I. Dia qui rend compte de la rencontre de Dakar 2004 ou Olivier Barlet rapportant le contenu de la célèbre leçon donnée du haut de la tribune du festival de Cannes 2005.
Par le roman ou par le cinéma, Sembène aura été celui qui aura donné la parole à l’Afrique. Non seulement il puise dans son imaginaire qui prend ses racines dans Casamance, cette région du Sud du Sénégal qui devint le centre du monde, mais son engagement ira jusqu’à vouloir imposer la langue wolof comme langue de littérature. Il en a été de même au cinéma. Après un début en langue française Borom Sarret et La noire de… qui le propulsent sur la scène internationale du septième art, il s’engage dans un travail titanesque de revalorisation des langues locales comme bastion de lutte pour la cause de la culture africaine.
Jusqu’au dernier élément de sa filmographie Sembène aura tenu ce cap : porter l’Afrique sur les scènes du monde. C’est dans ce sens que Molaadé, son dernier film a été compris en tout cas. Son dernier projet portait le nom de Samoury, le film dont il a toujours rêvé et qui devait éterniser l’un des symboles de l’Afrique combattante. Il l’aura laissé comme testament à la postérité pour qu’elle le concrétise. Il aura laissé certes une œuvre encore plus riche. Mais il aura laissé surtout un souffle que les jeunes générations pourront découvrir dans ses films ou dans ses romans. Pour cela, il est peut-être temps que l’école, que Sembène a connue d’une manière inhabituelle, fasse de la place à « l’ainé des anciens ». Il aura pour toujours des leçons à donner et des meilleures…
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57276456/Sembene-Ousmane-1923-1007
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Pour une sémiologie de la Trouille.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57150285/Pour-une-semiologie-de-la-trouille
What could be anti-religious in La Ricotta, a short film by Italian filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini? This film, such as a lot of other works of art and act of thinking, is in the realm of the a-historical conflict between the "Religious" on the one hand and the freedom of Artisitc expression and thinking on the other hand.
I form the plan to consider this a-historical conflict between Religion and Art, as a question of semiotics and I situate it in the frame of the theory of interpretation applied to one theme: the wholly figure of three monotheist religions. At the center of this debate stands the opposition between tow semiotic demarches that Umberto Eco formulates in two terms: "in verbis" and "in in factis".
This is how the Italian semiologist points at what he considers the two phenomenons of the semantics of the conditions of the “Truth”. The former covers statements that are true under a set of postulates of meanings; the latter those which are true in virtue of what it is being. (The Limits of interpretation, p.292)
I will analyze the two demarches focusing on the connection they have with the notion of "L'oeuvre ouvere" or “The open work” . My purpose is therefore to demonstrate that the conflict comes from the fact that the debate shifts from aesthetics and even theology in stricto senso to politics and turns around a certain margin of tolerance given (or not) to different kinds of alterities.
What could be anti-religious in La Ricotta, a short film by Italian filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini? This film, such as a lot of other works of art and act of thinking, is in the realm of the a-historical conflict between the "Religious" on the one hand and the freedom of Artisitc expression and thinking on the other hand.
I form the plan to consider this a-historical conflict between Religion and Art, as a question of semiotics and I situate it in the frame of the theory of interpretation applied to one theme: the wholly figure of three monotheist religions. At the center of this debate stands the opposition between tow semiotic demarches that Umberto Eco formulates in two terms: "in verbis" and "in in factis".
This is how the Italian semiologist points at what he considers the two phenomenons of the semantics of the conditions of the “Truth”. The former covers statements that are true under a set of postulates of meanings; the latter those which are true in virtue of what it is being. (The Limits of interpretation, p.292)
I will analyze the two demarches focusing on the connection they have with the notion of "L'oeuvre ouvere" or “The open work” . My purpose is therefore to demonstrate that the conflict comes from the fact that the debate shifts from aesthetics and even theology in stricto senso to politics and turns around a certain margin of tolerance given (or not) to different kinds of alterities.
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
voordekunst: Juni Nieuws
voordekunst: Juni Nieuws: "voordekunst in de pers Op maandag 30 mei om 18.15 had EenVandaag een item over voordekunst. Hier kwamen de projecthouders van OerolTube,..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)